Dark Knight - Post viewing discussion and review thread

[RhodyYanksFan]

But overall i thought the drab Bruce Wayne showed that he was losing it. Whether it was becoming too much for him (not to kill.) Or whether it was his sacrifices (losing his girl). He was still doing what he was doing, but he was forgetting why.

Whoever compared this to the Empire Strikes Back i think had it right. Batman was tired, he can jsut fly to Hong Kong, bust in, kidnap some dude, and hook onto a plane like its nothing. As Joker said "Gotham needs a better class of criminal". I think an overarching theme of the movie was that BATMAN needs a better class of criminal. Ok we lock up mob bosses and corrupt judges because they no longer have protection, but anyone can do that. "Harvey can be what i cant" He can be a leader with a face (or two ;-).

Then when the movie became chaotic, i think it was representative of what the joker was trying to do in general.

That was also addressed when the Joker talked about how they'll be fighting for years to come.

[NYYDragoon]

Also: The Joker just went on a murderous rampage, and the police decide to have the funeral in the open between all those buildings? Like, seriously?

[Sam18]

Also: The Joker just went on a murderous rampage, and the police decide to have the funeral in the open between all those buildings? Like, seriously?

9/11 happened and Bush decided to give a speech at ground zero? I mean come on, there were police snipers everywhere.

[NYYDragoon]

9/11 happened and Bush decided to give a speech at ground zero? I mean come on, there were police snipers everywhere.

There's a difference between 9/11 and, you know, what the Joker was able to do.

[Sam18]

There's a difference between 9/11 and, you know, what the Joker was able to do.

You're saying it was dangerous for political leaders to show up at public places while the Joker was at large correct? Initially after 9/11 or any sort of assassination attempts and what not leaders usually show up in public to show that they're not scared and it hasn't affected them. Are you seriously having trouble getting this?

[NYYDragoon]

You're saying it was dangerous for political leaders to show up at public places while the Joker was at large correct? Initially after 9/11 or any sort of assassination attempts and what not leaders usually show up in public to show that they're not scared and it hasn't affected them. Are you seriously having trouble getting this?

Sam,

I am talking about a fictional situation in a movie where the ragtag villians are much more capable than any ragtag enemy in real life given a similar situation. I know about suspension of disbelief, but this is a little ridiculous.

The Joker had already proven that could be infiltrate almost anything and kill anyone from anywhere. Having a funeral march with all those important people around (targets) after the previous scene was just silly writing. As such, the chaos that followed was incredibly predictable.

[Sam18]

Sam,

I am talking about a fictional situation in a movie where the ragtag villians are much more capable than any ragtag enemy in real life given a similar situation. I know about suspension of disbelief, but this is a little ridiculous.

The Joker had already proven that could be infiltrate almost anything and kill anyone from anywhere. Having a funeral march with all those important people around (targets) after the previous scene was just silly writing. As such, the chaos that followed was incredibly predictable.

...


The characters aren't gonna go "oh gee we're in a comic book movie so the bad guy must be really dangerous". No, the whole point of the movie was that these new villains were to be dealt with differently than the old ones. The funeral scene was just another stepping stone in that process. And considering the chaos from that scene was plastered all over the trailers yeah it was a bit predictable in that sense.

[NYYDragoon]

The characters aren't gonna go "oh gee we're in a comic book movie so the bad guy must be really dangerous". No, the whole point of the movie was that these new villains were to be dealt with differently than the old ones. The funeral scene was just another stepping stone in that process. And considering the chaos from that scene was plastered all over the trailers yeah it was a bit predictable in that sense.

Uh, no, the characters aren't--that's for the script writers to do. It was just repetitive writing, IMO.

I also didn't see the trailers. But given what had happened like twice beforehand, anyone who didn't see that scene ending poorly must have been asleep.

(This is why I was afraid to not hail this movie. So many people have gotten personally offended every time I explain what I didn't like about it.)

[RhodeyYankee2638]

I suspect they wanted the Joker to attack when they had the funeral between the buildings. It was daylight, the Joker was attacking mostly at night. If you hadn't noticed, the Joker kinda sticks out with that face. The joker could've just bombed the entire place, but didn't. Maybe he is the stupid one

[Sam18]

Uh, no, the characters aren't--that's for the script writers to do. It was just repetitive writing, IMO.

How is it repetitive writing? The scene had a very specific purpose. The Joker is killing Gotham's leaders one by one, that scene was the Mayor's turn.

I also didn't see the trailers. But given what had happened like twice beforehand, anyone who didn't see that scene ending poorly must have been asleep.

I don't get why you keep acting like that scene was supposed to be some sort of a twist which you figured out before hand. Yes it was predictable, but they weren't trying to make it unpredictable. In case you forgot its a movie...things out of the ordinary happen.

(This is why I was afraid to not hail this movie. So many people have gotten personally offended every time I explain what I didn't like about it.)

No one's getting personally offended. Many people have brought up parts of the movie they didn't like, while I disagree with them I can at least see why they would think that. Your problem with the funeral scene is...well just plain silly.

[NYYDragoon]

I suspect they wanted the Joker to attack when they had the funeral between the buildings. It was daylight, the Joker was attacking mostly at night. If you hadn't noticed, the Joker kinda sticks out with that face. The joker could've just bombed the entire place, but didn't. Maybe he is the stupid one

I just feel like it was silly to place that scene after all the others. After one attack? Sure. After two? Pushing it. But given all the drama beforehand, to have your characters so dense as to put themselves into an obvious bad position was just too much for me.

It's a picky point, but it's one minor plot hole that stuck with me.

No one's getting personally offended. Many people have brought up parts of the movie they didn't like, while I disagree with them I can at least see why they would think that. Your problem with the funeral scene is...well just plain silly.

In other words, you don't agree with my opinion . Fair enough.

[President Kennedy]

Feel free to explain why.

It should be obvious. Mann has a long and distinguished career, with several great, not just good, but great films on his resume. Nolan does not (as of yet.) I thought he was/is promising, but unlike virtually everyone, I wasn't all that impressed with The Dark Knight. It felt like Heat and Seven tossed into a blender with Batman characters running around. It is much too long, takes itself much too seriously. The bloom is going to wear off this rose once it's released on DVD and people take a good, hard look at what it was they were so breathless about. Without Ledger, it's a boring, boring film.

To the gentleman/lady I was discussing this with previously: Good for you that Esquire "agrees" with you. I have no idea why an article in Esquire is considered definitive or even valuable in the conversation, but if you feel it is, then kudos on the victory.

[RhodyYanksFan]

It should be obvious. Mann has a long and distinguished career, with several great, not just good, but great films on his resume. Nolan does not (as of yet.) I thought he was/is promising, but unlike virtually everyone, I wasn't all that impressed with The Dark Knight. It felt like Heat and Seven tossed into a blender with Batman characters running around. It is much too long, takes itself much too seriously. The bloom is going to wear off this rose once it's released on DVD and people take a good, hard look at what it was they were so breathless about. Without Ledger, it's a boring, boring film.

Don't you think that the fact that Nolan took comic book characters and made it not just a comic brought to live-action, but instead made a real epic and believable crime story, a great feat in and of itself?

There's literally dozens of comic book movies that don't take themselves seriously and Nolan decided to run the other way with it.

[President Kennedy]

Don't you think that the fact that Nolan took comic book characters and made it not just a comic brought to live-action, but instead made a real epic and believable crime story, a great feat in and of itself?

There's literally dozens of comic book movies that don't take themselves seriously and Nolan decided to run the other way with it.

His intentions are fine, I just didn't think the execution was all that great.

[yankeesAZ]

Saw it today and it was great and Ledger lived up to his billing.

[msw6880]

It should be obvious. Mann has a long and distinguished career, with several great, not just good, but great films on his resume.

I submit to you Miami Vice.

Though seriously, can't they both be great? And why can't Nolan include an homage to Heat? I've loved all of Nolan's films (if you haven't seen Following, check it out), and loved several of Mann's. Why the pissing contest?

[bcom33]

Uh, no, the characters aren't--that's for the script writers to do. It was just repetitive writing, IMO.

I also didn't see the trailers. But given what had happened like twice beforehand, anyone who didn't see that scene ending poorly must have been asleep.

(This is why I was afraid to not hail this movie. So many people have gotten personally offended every time I explain what I didn't like about it.)

I'm personally offended that you assume that I am personally offended. How dare you sir.

[TheManKnownAsMecca]

It should be obvious. Mann has a long and distinguished career, with several great, not just good, but great films on his resume. Nolan does not (as of yet.) I thought he was/is promising, but unlike virtually everyone, I wasn't all that impressed with The Dark Knight. It felt like Heat and Seven tossed into a blender with Batman characters running around. It is much too long, takes itself much too seriously. The bloom is going to wear off this rose once it's released on DVD and people take a good, hard look at what it was they were so breathless about. Without Ledger, it's a boring, boring film.

To the gentleman/lady I was discussing this with previously: Good for you that Esquire "agrees" with you. I have no idea why an article in Esquire is considered definitive or even valuable in the conversation, but if you feel it is, then kudos on the victory.

That still doesn't answer it. You said the movie was a step back for him. It was well received by almost everyone who has a valuable opinion in the movie industry and has the highest opening ever. How is that a step back? Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it is a step back for Nolan. If I hated Heat (which I don't) it wouldn't be a step back for Mann either.

[Retire21]

To the gentleman/lady I was discussing this with previously: Good for you that Esquire "agrees" with you. I have no idea why an article in Esquire is considered definitive or even valuable in the conversation, but if you feel it is, then kudos on the victory.

That would be me. I just happened on that article after you said Nolan's TDK was a step back for him. I wasn't stating that it was anything definitive, just that it helped to support my point.

Like I said, if Nolan and Mann were stocks, Nolan would be through the roof. Mann is still recovering from Miami Vice, in which his own actor (Coiln Farrell) thought the film sucked and said so publicly.

[brosiusbuddy]

Mann's last three films have been very underwhelming. Ali was long and boring. Collateral was a very pedestrian film. And Miami vice was a mediocre action movie with intriguing characters. Had it not been for great acting by the stars of those three movies, they wouldn't be worth talking about at all really. Sure, some of the great acting is probably attributed to Mann's direction, but as far as the movies go - a big so so.

[President Kennedy]

That still doesn't answer it. You said the movie was a step back for him. It was well received by almost everyone who has a valuable opinion in the movie industry and has the highest opening ever. How is that a step back? Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it is a step back for Nolan. If I hated Heat (which I don't) it wouldn't be a step back for Mann either.

Artistically, I do believe it's a step back for Nolan. Obviously he's going to reap the benefits of having such a wildly successful movie, but that doesn't guarantee his ascent as an important filmmaker. Roland Emmerich's movies make lots and lots of money too. I'm not comparing Nolan to Emmerich, by the way, just the idea that a huge success equals quality.

I still maintain that the book on this film isn't written yet. Everyone's caught up in the euphoria of it now, but we'll see where the film stands a few months, and years, from this summer.

[President Kennedy]

That would be me. I just happened on that article after you said Nolan's TDK was a step back for him. I wasn't stating that it was anything definitive, just that it helped to support my point.

Like I said, if Nolan and Mann were stocks, Nolan would be through the roof. Mann is still recovering from Miami Vice, in which his own actor (Coiln Farrell) thought the film sucked and said so publicly.

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest Mann is "recovering" from anything. He's currently making Public Enemies with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, which has all the makings of a fantastic movie.

Again, you bring up something that's not really material to the discussion. Colin Farrell's opinion of a film doesn't mean much considering either he or his agent's choice in films seems to be dreadful. Take a look at his resume, there isn't much that qualifies him as an expert despite actually working in the industry. Actors, like baseball players about baseball, are usually the worst sources when it comes to discussing films.

[NewEraYanks2527]

I think we are all overlooking the real issue of what the problem with Bale's Batman is. Clearly he is just unprepared. I mean come on how many times do you have to get attacked by dogs before you manufacture some Bat-Dog Repllent? Clearly this man is the true Batman:

[NYYDragoon]

I'm personally offended that you assume that I am personally offended. How dare you sir.

Well I'm personally offended that...nevermind.

[jlw1980]

I'm going today.

[YASS]

I finally saw it, and I was deeply impressed with Heath Ledger's performance. I'm the sort who tends to fall asleep in the comfy stadium seating if the movie doesn't constantly demand my attention, and I wasn't able to take a single nap during TDK.

That said, some of the criticisms I've seen here are spot on. I found that the screenplay often overwhelmed my ability to suspend disbelief.

* Harvey Dent conspicuously spent a few minutes with half his face soaked by a flammable liquid. Then, when the explosion happens, half of his face burns for ... what? A few seconds? Batman is there to put out the flame almost immediately, and we're still supposed to believe he suffered the kind of catastrophic damage we saw later?

* Dent refuses treatment for his burns? Seriously? Even if he's conscious and able to make such a ridiculous demand, what hospital would accede to the whim of an obviously traumatized patient? Absurd.

* The Joker is just too smart. He exactly anticipates every move by every other actor in every scenario. He sets up way-too-elaborate killing devices without expending any effort, and every victim willingly falls into every trap. I didn't buy it.

[NYYDragoon]

That said, some of the criticisms I've seen here are spot on. I found that the screenplay often overwhelmed my ability to suspend disbelief. [...]

Oh Yass. We'd get along just fine if you weren't a Sox fan.

(FYI, beware of an angry Sam.)

[Sam18]

Oh Yass. We'd get along just fine if you weren't a Sox fan.

(FYI, beware of an angry Sam.)

No I understand where YASS is coming from. I would tell him its still a comic book movie so suspension of disbelief is something that comes with watching it. Your issue with the funeral scene however is still retarded.

[brosiusbuddy]

I finally saw it, and I was deeply impressed with Heath Ledger's performance. I'm the sort who tends to fall asleep in the comfy stadium seating if the movie doesn't constantly demand my attention, and I wasn't able to take a single nap during TDK.

That said, some of the criticisms I've seen here are spot on. I found that the screenplay often overwhelmed my ability to suspend disbelief.

* Harvey Dent conspicuously spent a few minutes with half his face soaked by a flammable liquid. Then, when the explosion happens, half of his face burns for ... what? A few seconds? Batman is there to put out the flame almost immediately, and we're still supposed to believe he suffered the kind of catastrophic damage we saw later?

* Dent refuses treatment for his burns? Seriously? Even if he's conscious and able to make such a ridiculous demand, what hospital would accede to the whim of an obviously traumatized patient? Absurd.

* The Joker is just too smart. He exactly anticipates every move by every other actor in every scenario. He sets up way-too-elaborate killing devices without expending any effort, and every victim willingly falls into every trap. I didn't buy it.

You are aware that it is still a comic book movie right?

[YASS]

You are aware that it is still a comic book movie right?

Sure, I understand that. But it still has to make sense, and I didn't think it did, at least in parts.

[StatenIslandYankee]

Sure, I understand that. But it still has to make sense, and I didn't think it did, at least in parts.

Once again to reiterate what the poster said above ... it is a comic book movie There is a sense of 'how did that happen' and 'why is he so good' ....

[YASS]

Once again to reiterate what the poser said above ... it is a comic book movie There is a sense of 'how did that happen' and 'why is he so good' ....

brosiusbuddy may not be all that, but I wouldn't call him a poser.


Again, I have been a comic book fan for almost 50 years. I understand the difference between the two worlds. I am able to suspend my disbelief for the things that matter. I don't insist on a strict adherence to the laws of physics.

You want to make a guy fly? OK. You want a giant green fist to protrude from some guy's ring? Fine. You want a Norse god with polka dots on his onesie to throw hammers at criminals? Good!

But if you want to damage half of a guy's face beyond all recognition, let the flame burn for more than 4 or 5 seconds.

[Snatch Catch]

But if you want to damage half of a guy's face beyond all recognition, let the flame burn for more than 4 or 5 seconds.

My MAJOR issue was after that:

He was burned down to the muscle and bone, a gaping hole in his face to the point where you can see his lower jaw, he refuses any pain medication, yet he can speak freely, move his jaw, and clench his mouth in anger, all without even remotely wincing. I know it's a comic book movie, but that goes beyond simply "imagining" that the Joker could actually fool everyone. That is bio-physics, and it's not just a little off. It's way, way, way off. That part of the movie introduced a comicbook element to the movie that I was thrilled wasn't present up to that point. It really bugged me fromt hat point on. Up until then I was able to view the whole thing as a crime/drama.

Other than that, loved it.

[NYYDragoon]

Up until then I was able to view the whole thing as a crime/drama.

On an ADD sidenote: that's one thing I liked about the movie. It was more of a drama with superhero elements than a straight out superhero movie. Another plus of the Begins series.

But back on topic: I really didn't have that much trouble stomaching what you and YASS disliked. Either I was able to suspend my disbelief or I was just excited for his appearance. Although yeah...I guess it WAS a little goofy.

[YASS]

My MAJOR issue was after that:

He was burned down to the muscle and bone, a gaping hole in his face to the point where you can see his lower jaw, he refuses any pain medication, yet he can speak freely, move his jaw, and clench his mouth in anger, all without even remotely wincing. I know it's a comic book movie, but that goes beyond simply "imagining" that the Joker could actually fool everyone. That is bio-physics, and it's not just a little off. It's way, way, way off. That part of the movie introduced a comicbook element to the movie that I was thrilled wasn't present up to that point. It really bugged me fromt hat point on. Up until then I was able to view the whole thing as a crime/drama.

Agree completely.

The worst part of that for me was that he was able to speak perfectly, with no impediment of any kind, despite the fact that he was missing half of both his upper and lower lips. Simply not possible.

[brosiusbuddy]

How do you know the flammable liquid wasn't an accelerant that caused flames to reach heightened temperatures that would rapidly increase the time it took to burn human skin?

Perhaps a fictional hospital in a fictional town where a fictional man in a bat suit fights crime would allow a patient to refuse pain treatments?

Perhaps because Joker has influence over every criminal in Gotham he is able to pull off such stunts with the ease he was able to. Name an action movie where the action sequences and schemes aren't all conveniently pulled off flawlessly on the first try and you've named a lame action movie.

[jeterismyhomeboy]

My greatest disappointment in the movie (which I saw Friday) was that there was so much plot. It was all very enjoyable plot, but there was a lot of it. I understand how Dragoon felt that things were very disjointed.

Still, I loved the movie. I am a big fan of suspension of disbelief when a movie or book is captivating enough to make me lose sense of reality, and TDK was one of those. The biggest break for me wasn't that the Joker could outsmart everyone, or even Harvey Dent's mobility. It was when Harvey drank the shot of alcohol without flinching. I thought, "Alcohol touching those wounds should hurt like a mofo."

Gyllenhaal probably isn't going to get a lot of props, but Rachel was a sanctimonious, self-righteous, condescending character under Katie Holmes, and I thought that Gyllenhaal offered what the character was truly meant to be. I also loved the outer demons of Bruce Wayne, as he comes up against a criminal he doesn't entirely understand and has to question his own ability to keep to his rules. And, of course, I loved all scenes where Christian Bale was either brooding or shirtless. Hey, I'm only human, and I'm a girl with a weakness for three-piece tailored suits.

The gravel voice for 2 1/2 hours bugged me too. But it's layered in by computer apparently, not purely done by Bale.

[StatenIslandYankee]

brosiusbuddy may not be all that, but I wouldn't call him a poser.


Again, I have been a comic book fan for almost 50 years. I understand the difference between the two worlds. I am able to suspend my disbelief for the things that matter. I don't insist on a strict adherence to the laws of physics.

You want to make a guy fly? OK. You want a giant green fist to protrude from some guy's ring? Fine. You want a Norse god with polka dots on his onesie to throw hammers at criminals? Good!

But if you want to damage half of a guy's face beyond all recognition, let the flame burn for more than 4 or 5 seconds.

Typo. I meant POSTER ... as in the person who POSTED above. OOPS.

[26 and counting]

I saw this today - it was great. I can't wait till it comes out on Blu-Ray.

I can't believe how dark the film was.

[RhodeyYankee2638]

A giant adult dressed like a bat flies around the city and Japan beating up criminals and a man dressed like a clown, and people can't suspend their disbelief for a dude getting his face burned? Hehehe

[President Kennedy]

I ask this in all sincerity:

Why are we using spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to people who have already seen the movie?

[President Kennedy]

A giant adult dressed like a bat flies around the city and Japan beating up criminals and a man dressed like a clown, and people can't suspend their disbelief for a dude getting his face burned? Hehehe

YOu can't keep praising a film for being grounded in reality and a sincere crime drama while excusing the stuff that doesn't fit that by suggesting it's a comic book movie.

This goes to my earlier criticisms that this film isn't going to hold up particularly well.

[4bronxbombers]

I ask this in all sincerity:

Why are we using spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to people who have already seen the movie?

I was wondering that too.

[Espinosa's Glasses]

Agree completely.

The worst part of that for me was that he was able to speak perfectly, with no impediment of any kind, despite the fact that he was missing half of both his upper and lower lips. Simply not possible.

To quote both of you...
It wasn't really the worst part just because its based off of a comic book.

I am not one for watching movies twice but I'm def. gonna download this one...
It was awesome.

[YASS]

I ask this in all sincerity:

Why are we using spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to people who have already seen the movie?

I think it was agreed early on in the thread that posters should use spoiler tags for the first week or so after release, so as to allow those who haven't seen it yet to safely come in and look around at people's reactions to the film.

[President Kennedy]

I think it was agreed early on in the thread that posters should use spoiler tags for the first week or so after release, so as to allow those who haven't seen it yet to safely come in and look around at people's reactions to the film.

The hell with them.

[RhodeyYankee2638]

YOu can't keep praising a film for being grounded in reality and a sincere crime drama while excusing the stuff that doesn't fit that by suggesting it's a comic book movie.

This goes to my earlier criticisms that this film isn't going to hold up particularly well.

People are saying its the most realistic comic book movie, not that it is grounded in reality. Big difference

[Jace]

I didnt get how Two Face shot the driver of a car he was in... the car catastrophically flipped over at like 60 mph... he is fine (as fine as a guy with a demonically mangled face can be) in the next scene... he was in that car, right?

And shouldn't Marconi have had broken legs and internal bleeding or something after getting dropped? He showed up in the hospital with Gordon and two-face and was fine (i thought)

I loved the state of mayem things were in by the end. Social order would literally evaporate when that hospital blew up. Hell, after the Joker killed like 80 cops and blew up MCU im surprised the cops didnt all quit

All in all i really really enjoyed it. I'd say i liked the Departed just barely better in the top 2 movies ive seen in awhile

[JeterForPresident]

I really enjoyed the movie, I thought the performances were all great, especially Ledger who had a great part and just hit it out of the park. I didn't care for the ending.

[JeterForPresident]

People are saying its the most realistic comic book movie, not that it is grounded in reality. Big difference

The thing I love about these two batman films is that while they are based on a comic book character they go to great lengths and succeed in making you believe that while it isn't likely, the events and characters depicted are possible. I love the little touches like explaining how they will use dummy corps. to buy the cowls and order a large amount to avoid suspicions.