[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The Joker's continual and random mass destruction was also pretty random; dude plainly cannot hide anywhere on earth without being recognized, but somehow can rig about a hundred bombs to completely blow up an entire hospital, and kidnap almost a hundred people to use as fake hostages on some random half-completed skyscraper project. (?!?)

Uh, he has people working for him? He's seen with associates repeatedly throughout the movie.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Stogieman 

Nope, It appears the original estimate was lower than expected.

"On Sunday, Warner Bros. Pictures estimated that The Dark Knight had earned $155.3 million its opening weekend. Turns out, that was low! The final figures show that Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins follow-up took in a record-breaking $158.4 million over the Friday-to-Sunday frame!!!, easily beating the $151.1 million opening of Spider-Man 3 in May 2007.

One of the big reasons for the lower estimate was that the studio expected the movie to do about $39.4 million on Sunday but in actuality it received about $43 million, again beating Spider-Man 3's previous record of $39.9 million for the day."

Variety Article

I think this sums it up quite nicely.

That's the second coolest thing in the universe right now (after the movie itself, of course).

[lpkmckenna]

I just got back from seeing it. Excellent crime flick. Joker's schemes are awesome. I think the Joker's schemes overshadow the Joker himself. I may need to see it again just to watch those develop.

The death of Gordon flew past with too little emphasis, which of course made it suspicious. I don't know why I didn't anticipate his re-entrance, but I figured that masked guy was a villain.

Dent's arc was excellent. I too was expecting Two Face as the next film's villain so I couldn't anticipate what was gonna happen next.

Just like every other Batman flick, the Batman-kicking-ass scenes are too dark and too choppy. I'm just not convinced by it. However, all the "Bat-cable" stuff rocked.

The film's closing "cover-up" was clever. Was that taken from the comics?

Anyways, the next film will require some female cast, as it's now a bit too male-heavy. I would welcome Catwoman as the main villain. Or since Batman is now publicly demonized, the "villain" could actually be a hero hunting Batman. Green Arrow versus the Batman?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Uh, he has people working for him? He's seen with associates repeatedly throughout the movie.

Yeah, he had like…ALL of organized crime helping him.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sorry you got lost, it all made perfect sense to me.


Easily the best film of the year, so far.

I didn't say it didn't make sense. I said it was just too much "stuff." There just wasn't enough time to deal with a lot of the things I listed; as a result they seemed to be just half-assed.

I mean, it seems like Lucius Fox is now walking away from Batman/Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises perhaps... but this was discussed and dealt with in about 15 seconds.

Rachel's death was similarly handled (after being a prominent character throughout the movie, she got what, a 20-second explosion and a 1-minute emotionless Bruce Wayne reflection? Was there even an 8-second funeral sequence? Hmmm).

How about the Gordon re-appearance? Totally random? No set-up? No clever tie-in to the story?

Case in point:

Uh, he has people working for him? He's seen with associates repeatedly throughout the movie.

Uh huh...yet we're not told who they are, or why they're following this madman that even the crime bosses can't stand. They are "associates." Makes for a cool scene with a pool cue, but you're just proving my own point: that somehow, all this stuff I'm talking about must've got done by some shadowy "associates." I mean, it isn't really a big/serious point I was trying to make - I get it, he blows stuff up and is crazy, that's fine - but it still shows that the film leaves a lot of "stuff" to be penciled in by the viewer, because it couldn't possibly find the time to devote even 20 seconds towards filling us in with some details without adding another half-hour onto the movie. In my books, that means the film was too ambitious.

My list goes on. It seems to me as though Nolan had planned for a 3.5-hour movie before having to do some drastic cuts.

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I didn't say it didn't make sense. I said it was just too much "stuff." There just wasn't enough time to deal with a lot of the things I listed; as a result they seemed to be just half-assed.

I mean, it seems like Lucius Fox is now walking away from Batman/Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises perhaps... but this was discussed and dealt with in about 15 seconds.

Rachel's death was similarly handled (after being a prominent character throughout the movie, she got what, a 20-second explosion and a 1-minute emotionless Bruce Wayne reflection? Was there even an 8-second funeral sequence? Hmmm).

How about the Gordon re-appearance? Totally random? No set-up? No clever tie-in to the story?

Case in point:

Uh huh...yet we're not told who they are, or why they're following this madman that even the crime bosses can't stand. They are "associates." Makes for a cool scene with a pool cue, but you're just proving my own point: that somehow, all this stuff I'm talking about must've got done by some shadowy "associates." I mean, it isn't really a big/serious point I was trying to make - I get it, he blows stuff up and is crazy, that's fine - but it still shows that the film leaves a lot of "stuff" to be penciled in by the viewer, because it couldn't possibly find the time to devote even 20 seconds towards filling us in with some details without adding another half-hour onto the movie. In my books, that means the film was too ambitious.

My list goes on. It seems to me as though Nolan had planned for a 3.5-hour movie before having to do some drastic cuts.

greg

I admit the movie is crowded, but you know if you skim over one line of a great novel it can throw you off for pages.

They made a point that Joker had recruited many of the Arkham escapees from the end of Begins. Remember that he makes off with millions of dollars at the beginning of the movie with which to finance his schemes.

I found Rachel Dawes' death (after a superior performance by Gyllenhal) to be the emotional fulcrum of the film. After her death, anything was possible. Batman could lose. Lose himself. Lose Gordon's son. Lose his own ethical code. It put everything on the line. It shocked the audience I was sitting in to a palpable silence (except, perhaps, for my children's desperate questions: "Did she die?").

I don't mean to sound like a cultist, but hearing someone suggest that this picture was anything short of outstanding filmmaking really makes me wonder if we saw the same movie.

I was blown away.


P.S. Since I mentioned my children's presence in this film, I think I should add my opinion that this movie should have been rated R. I regret having taken them and we had to have a thorough discussion of the film afterward to discuss the level of violence.

[Randman]

The Scarecrow and the fake Batmen were there at the beginning to show how easy things were going for Batman at that stage. He took out the Scarecrow in seconds. The fake Batmen and police adulation were there to show how established Batman was looked at that stage, setting up the entire fall.

The movie wasn't perfect but it was damn good. Every major performance was note perfect. You can't say that about too many movies. Bale's Batman voice is awesome in short bursts but it loses it on the longer speeches. But he can't go back to the Bruce Wayne voice. Nolan's not that great at fight scenes but did much better this time, I thought. Also, Batman did much less ninja fighting and much more punch you in the face fighting.

I also like that instead of more gadgets, you had fewer ones. The Bat Pod was a logical idea expanded from the Tumbler.

As far as the Hong Kong scene, I think that was great. It showed that Batman was not just about Gotham City. He went into a foreign country, blew up part of a building and kidnapped the guy to bring him back to justice.

There were just so many intertwined elements that worked well together. Joker and Batman scene. Joker and Two-face scene. Joker and Rachel scene. Batman and Gordon scenes. Bruce and Lucius Fox scenes. Bruce and Alfred scenes, etc.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I mean, it seems like Lucius Fox is now walking away from Batman/Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises perhaps... but this was discussed and dealt with in about 15 seconds.

Lucius Fox isn't walking away from Wayne Enterprises. When Bruce showed him the super computer the cellphone eavesdropping technology, Fox told Bruce that he would only help him this one time. However, he would resign from Wayne Enterprises if the computer was kept up and running. Bruce told Lucius to type in his name (which turns out to be the self-destruct code) when he was finish. That's why you see Lucius smiling when he walks away from the computer as all the screens start to shut off.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Rachel's death was similarly handled (after being a prominent character throughout the movie, she got what, a 20-second explosion and a 1-minute emotionless Bruce Wayne reflection? Was there even an 8-second funeral sequence? Hmmm).

I thought that 20 second explosion was perfect. The last thing I want is another death scene that drags on and on. (Trinity from Matrix Revolutions, I'm looking at you!) Besides who wants another funeral sequence when there was already two in the film? (the commissioner and Harvey Dent)

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uh huh...yet we're not told who they are, or why they're following this madman that even the crime bosses can't stand.

Because they're afraid of him? No one really knows anything about this guy or how many people are working him. Just listen to how the bank robbers describe him in the beginning of the movie. It reminded me of Keyser Soze from The Usual Suspects.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I mean, it isn't really a big/serious point I was trying to make - I get it, he blows stuff up and is crazy, that's fine - but it still shows that the film leaves a lot of "stuff" to be penciled in by the viewer....

Sorry, you lost me there. I start thinking of the disappearing pencil trick after reading that last sentence.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I found Rachel Dawes' death (after a superior performance by Gyllenhal) to be the emotional fulcrum of the film. After her death, anything was possible. Batman could lose. Lose himself. Lose Gordon's son. Lose his own ethical code. It put everything on the line. It shocked the audience I was sitting in to a palpable silence (except, perhaps, for my children's desperate questions: "Did she die?").

I found Rachel's death to be well done, but wholly predictable. She obviously had to die to help usher Harvey down the road to Two-Face madness. Are you saying you actually thought she was going to live?!? Really? And the rest of the audience did as well? That amazes me.

I don't mean to sound like a cultist, but hearing someone suggest that this picture was anything short of outstanding filmmaking really makes me wonder if we saw the same movie.

I liked it, but I certainly wouldn't call it outstanding. Ledger was outstanding. The movie? No.

[lavar78]

Rassum frassum double post...

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

I found Rachel's death to be well done, but wholly predictable. She obviously had to die to help usher Harvey down the road to Two-Face madness. Are you saying you actually thought she was going to live?!? Really? And the rest of the audience did as well? That amazes me.


I liked it, but I certainly wouldn't call it outstanding. Ledger was outstanding. The movie? No.

I guess I hadn't considered just what it would take for Harvey to go Two-Face on us; there are other possibilities, I suppose. Regardless of whether it was predictable or not, my point about its importance to the flow of the narrative remains.

Anyway, to each his own. Most people I've spoken to would definitely use the word "outstanding," but it takes all kinds to make up a world...I just find myself wondering, if this was outstanding, then what is?

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I guess I hadn't considered just what it would take for Harvey to go Two-Face on us; there are other possibilities, I suppose. Regardless of whether it was predictable or not, my point about its importance to the flow of the narrative remains.

Well, I agree, but that's one of the problems I have with the movie. They invent an expendable character just for these movies, inject her into the back stories of both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent as a love interest, let her know Batman's true identity, and then expect us to be shocked when she's inevitably killed? Maybe I've read too many comic books, because the emotional investment wasn't there for me at all. That was the only outcome that was even a possibility.

Anyway, to each his own. Most people I've spoken to would definitely use the word "outstanding," but it takes all kinds to make up a world...I just find myself wondering, if this was outstanding, then what is?

Ledger as the Joker was outstanding. It was the best performance I've seen in a while.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I thought Batman Begins was just about perfect. They made a guy in a funny outfit seem real. In this movie it was so realistic and shot like a cop movie that Batman almost seemed out of place in many of the scenes. Not a complaint though, I sorta liked the imbalance.

[scottiB]

I enjoyed it greatly. Sure it was overstuffed, but I ate it all. Could've lost the sub-sub plot of the dweeb revealing Batman's identity--seems the end result of all that was to get to Dent and blow-up the hospital.

Also, the ever repeating "Gotham needs a hero" theme was a little much. When Tiny Lister threw the detonator overboard, and the businessman backed down, it seemed that Gothamites weren't all that hopeless and rudderless.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

Well, I agree, but that's one of the problems I have with the movie. They invent an expendable character just for these movies, inject her into the back stories of both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent as a love interest, let her know Batman's true identity, and then expect us to be shocked when she's inevitably killed? Maybe I've read too many comic books, because the emotional investment wasn't there for me at all. That was the only outcome that was even a possibility.


Ledger as the Joker was outstanding. It was the best performance I've seen in a while.

If she was a character new to this film then I could see how she would be "injected." Since she'd bridged the two movies, I didn't think her presence was just some contrivance. Are you saying you assumed she was slated to die, even in the first film, simply because she wasn't in the comics?

[Stogieman]

Just a reminder of how far the Batman series has come since the days of Joel Schumacher almost killing the franchise.



YouTube: Batman & Robin - Worst Movie Ever <---- Click it. I dare you to sit through all 10 mins.

[Brien]

I just watched it on TNT a few days ago, and I could NOT stop laughing.

[ghporter]

Schumacher didn't do anything that hadn't already been done thirty years earlier, and he didn't do it anywhere near as campy, either. Have you seen the old Batman TV series? I watched EVERY episode when it was broadcast, and while I had fun with it, I never "got" Batman until Frank Miller's "Dark Knight" graphic novel.

And "Batman and Robin" was fun. Not serious from any point of view, just fun. Nice action, a story that was not hard to follow (yeah, it was cheesy), and some attractive people doing a lot of interesting action sequences. Frankly, the least believeable part for me was, by far, the telescope in downtown Gotham. A major observatory in the heart of a major city? Preposterous!

[hokie17]

Schumacher took a very different tone than Burton's films, though. (Obviously for the worse)

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

If she was a character new to this film then I could see how she would be "injected." Since she'd bridged the two movies, I didn't think her presence was just some contrivance. Are you saying you assumed she was slated to die, even in the first film, simply because she wasn't in the comics?

I'm saying she was already something of a love interest to Bruce, has a long back story with him, and knew his secret identity in the first film. That's a lot. The minute I saw them hook her up with Harvey Dent... well, let's just say I knew her days were numbered. She's the only new character from either film and she was linked to virtually every character in this movie (Wayne, Dent, Pennyworth). I chuckled when the Joker said Batman could only save one of them. "Gee, I wonder which one." I would've been supremely shocked it had been the other way around.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Schumacher didn't do anything that hadn't already been done thirty years earlier, and he didn't do it anywhere near as campy, either. Have you seen the old Batman TV series? I watched EVERY episode when it was broadcast, and while I had fun with it, I never "got" Batman until Frank Miller's "Dark Knight" graphic novel.

Heh. I love the Batman TV series. Love the movie, too. It may not be the best portrayal of the character, but, dammit, it's fun!

And "Batman and Robin" was fun. Not serious from any point of view, just fun. Nice action, a story that was not hard to follow (yeah, it was cheesy), and some attractive people doing a lot of interesting action sequences.

Ahnold alone is enough to make me hate that movie. I still don't see how he could make all of those bad puns with a straight face. Who knew he was such a good actor? Seriously though, the one I don't have is Batman Forever. It wasn't good by any stretch (and Two-Face does very little), but it wasn't nearly as bad as the 4th one IMO. Of course, I haven't seen either since I saw them in the theater, so...

[chichow]

Can we get the thread re titled to include (SPOILERS)

[Hawkeye_a]

Just got back from this movie. loved it. the villains stole the show imo.

My favorite Batman flick is still Batman Returns (Tim Burton), but this one is a definite second.

My only criticizm would be that the chick who played Rachel Dawes....wasnt good enough.

The Dark Knight is possibly the best comic-book-action movie to come out this past decade.

Go watch it, if you haven't already.

Cheers

[MallyMal]

Random thoughts...

 

I really liked the Joker.

I didn't like when the Bat-Bike went up the wall and turned around.

Wayne rides an MV Agusta F4. Very nice bike.

Wayne also drives a Lamborghini Murcielago LP640. I believe murcielago translates into "bat". Coincidence? I think not.

I don't think the accountant will become the Riddler because his name was Coleman Reese. The Riddler is Edward Nigma.

I was surprised when the inmate threw the detonator away.

I really liked the Joker(again).

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

Random thoughts...

 

I don't think the accountant will become the Riddler because his name was Coleman Reese. The Riddler is Edward Nigma.

 

That name has since been said to be a pseudonym, because it's just too corny to be his real name. More "realism" intruding on comics.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The Dark Knight is possibly the best comic-book-action movie to come out this past decade.

What from the previous decade beats it?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

 

That name has since been said to be a pseudonym, because it's just too corny to be his real name. More "realism" intruding on comics.

I read something on IGN about the way Riddler is operating in the comics these days, as a brilliant pseudo-good guy working with the police but with ulterior motives. Their speculation, and this makes sense, is that he could be brought in as a police consultant hunting Batman and grow into an obsessed villain.

[sek929]

Well I saw it tonight. I'm not a big superhero movie fan and I'm incredibly picky about action movies.

Great film, period. Not just an action movie, or a superhero movie, or whatever. Just all in all a well-made, well-acted and well-written piece of cinema.

Packed theater dead silent and captivated the entire time, everyone clapped when it ended.

Best movie I've seen in a while.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What from the previous decade beats it?

Well, in my opinion.... i think Batman Returns was better. And i also loved the 4 Super-Man movies with Chris Reeves.

Cheers

[besson3c]

Superman III and IV? Yuck, those movies sucked... IMDB gives Superman III a 4.6/10, and IV a 3.3/10 - both have tons of votes. Dark Knight is sitting at 9.5/10 right now

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I read something on IGN about the way Riddler is operating in the comics these days, as a brilliant pseudo-good guy working with the police but with ulterior motives. Their speculation, and this makes sense, is that he could be brought in as a police consultant hunting Batman and grow into an obsessed villain.

That does make sense. However, I don't feel like they'd leave it at that. I doubt they could resist adding yet another villain.

[mdc]

A friend of mine brought up a point this morning which I hadn't thought of, and it made me think.
I haven't followed all three pages of this thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up before.

 

At the end of the movie when Gordon and Batman are standing around talking about how they cannot let the public know that Harvey became Two-Face and killed those people, and thus Batman must take the blame and be hunted by the police.

Why didn't they just agree to tell the public that the Joker killed those people? Blame it all on the Joker.

[Randman]

The Joker was still alive and would be going to trial. And even while insane, I doubt he'd take the blame for Harvey's actions, or for killing Harvey himself.

If anything, Rachel's death served to sever Bruce's ties with humanity. It eliminated his chance for giving up the mantle of the Bat.

Besides, the Joker was in custody when Harvey was rampaging and when Harvey died so he couldn't have done it anyway.

[MallyMal]

Regarding what mdc said...

 

I think it's because Gordon and Batman are honorable men. They don't frame people of crimes they didn't do. They only agreed to let Batman take the fall for Dent because they felt Gotham would be worse if the truth was told. So, Batman and Gordon made the sacrifice.

[dlefebvre]

That's what I love about this film, it dosen't take the viewer for granted.
You don't have people repeating and over-explaining what you just saw. Unlike Spiderman and the "With great power comes great responsability" quote that comes back every now and then in the 3 movies. WE GET IT!!! Cut it out! We're not stupid!

Batman's own morale code forbids him from killing anyone. You don't see Batman saying "I don't kill criminals" every 5 minutes! He never even mention it verbaly once in both movies, but you understand it just by his actions and attitude. It not served pre-chewed for you, in case you don't understand, like most major blockbuster movies.

 

The same goe's for Gordon's "death". It was part of a plan and by the character's attitude, we knew it was part of a plan. We didin't have to hear them say it and repeat it. This is not the Teletubbies, it's the Dark Knight!

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by dlefebvre 

That's what I love about this film, it dosen't take the viewer for granted.
You don't have people repeating and over-explaining what you just saw. Unlike Spiderman and the "With great power comes great responsability" quote that comes back every now and then in the 3 movies. WE GET IT!!! Cut it out! We're not stupid!

Eh, I think that has more to do with the personalities of Batman and Spider-Man, which are almost polar opposites. Spidey is a talker; it's what he does.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

 

That name has since been said to be a pseudonym, because it's just too corny to be his real name. More "realism" intruding on comics.

Really? That's wack. And not in a good superhero "WACK!!!" kind of way.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Well, in my opinion.... i think Batman Returns was better. And i also loved the 4 Super-Man movies with Chris Reeves.

Cheers

Batman Returns was good too, but as far as the actual production, screenwriting, and moodiness goes...even Batman Begins beats Batman Returns (IMVHO). I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, so I'm ignoring all the spoiler tags here.

The four Superman movies were okay, but a bit too juvenile for my superhero movie tastes. This is just one guy's opinion though. I can certainly respect yours as well. A ton of people love those Superman movies.

[PlacidTubs]

I've never met anyone that liked Superman 3 and 4.

[greenamp]

I hard a hard time wrapping my head around the batbike's acrobatics as well. Not a biggie though.

And food for thought, Harley-Davidson now owns MV Agusta.

[Hawkeye_a]

To be honest, i havent seen Superman 2,3 or 4 for at least 15 years. it's just sentimentality, i guess that i put them at the top of my list. I remembered enjoying them when i did watch em tho. Now, thanks to you guys, im afraid to watch them again .

Cheers

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

To be honest, i havent seen Superman 2,3 or 4 for at least 15 years. it's just sentimentality, i guess that i put them at the top of my list. I remembered enjoying them when i did watch em tho. Now, thanks to you guys, im afraid to watch them again .

It's been a long time since I've seen them as well. IIRC, 3 is hilariously bad, but 4 is just bad.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

To be honest, i havent seen Superman 2,3 or 4 for at least 15 years. it's just sentimentality, i guess that i put them at the top of my list. I remembered enjoying them when i did watch em tho. Now, thanks to you guys, im afraid to watch them again .

Cheers

I watched #1 again recently and it is still amazing today. Better than that Singer Superman for sure.

#2 is sorta corny but still good.

I liked #3 as a kid but haven't seen it in 15 years.

#4 you are a friggin' crackhead if you like this one. Even as a 10 year old kid I knew it was total crap.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

#4 you are a friggin' crackhead if you like this one. Even as a 10 year old kid I knew it was total crap.

Chris was a solid, even exceptional, actor, but he should have stayed in front of the camera and out from behind the typewriter on that one. I saw it the day after my son was born, and I guess I gave it a pass because I was walking on air, but looking back, it was dreck mixed with poo, and covered with a thin layer of fail that hid the inner core of fail. Yes, it was indeed "that bad."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by dlefebvre 

 

The same goe's for Gordon's "death". It was part of a plan and by the character's attitude, we knew it was part of a plan. We didin't have to hear them say it and repeat it. This is not the Teletubbies, it's the Dark Knight!

Huh?

It's not infinitely smarter because it doesn't come out and explicitly say "it was part of a plan." They said the same thing, clearly, but implicitly. That it was one way and not the other doesn't mean crap.

Besides, it was still a random, unexplained, and annoyingly out-of-the-blue part of the movie. It was awkwardly integrated. I watched it again tonight, just to see if my first impressions weren't inaccurate, and it still stuck out like a sore thumb.

It was still a solid flick for me; "good but not great." Heath should get an Oscar, though. In the theatre tonight I happened to look around when the "fake bounty hunter scene" was on. When the Joker walked out and the screen shifted to China (I think it was), the entire row seemed to slump forward all at once – everyone had been stiffened back into their chair just watching him explain where he got the scars, and it was like they only remembered to relax when he left the screen! Very, very, very impressive effect.

greg

[SirCastor]

I don't know what I can add to the conversation here. I agree with the majority that this was really an amazing film. It was far better than I expected. I don't think any of the praise that this movie receives is hype, or undeserved.

A guy I know who runs a comic book shop once shared with me his opinion of why The Joker and Batman are so perfect together as Nemisi (I think that's right):
Batman is a genius, and extremely logical
The Joker is a genius, and extremely illogical.

I agree with that statement, and I feel like this movie explained that relationship perfectly. Watching this movie I understand very well why the Joker and Batman co-exist. Perfect!

A couple more things:

-My wife said to me as we left the Theater that she never wanted to see this movie again. Too intense. I agree. Ledger's performance as the Joker was not only brilliant, but also terrifying.

- Call me thick-headed, but I was surprised at Gordon's death, and when he didn't come back in the next 10 minutes, I began to question if he was dead or not.

-"Give me the detenator. You can tell them that I forced it from you... Give it to me, and I'm gonna do what you should've done 10 minutes ago..."

- I'm glad that the Joker wasn't weighed down with the guns that shoot out the little 'bang' flags, or laughing gas that makes people die with a smile. Those are token Joker, but I didn't feel like they fit in this version.

1) Hopital blowing up
2) Semi Truck flipping over end

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

Nemisi (I think that's right)

"Nemeses" (like "crisis" and "crises")

[Randman]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

- I'm glad that the Joker wasn't weighed down with the guns that shoot out the little 'bang' flags, or laughing gas that makes people die with a smile

Well, he did have the gas grenade that was used at the bank.

[freudling]

I just got back from seeing this film...

About 3/4 of the way through, I started yawning, and looked around and saw others yawning too. Either they were yawning because they were bored like me, or yawning because they saw me yawn... I am pretty sure the former.

While the action was good, the script was egregiously trite: hollywood garbage again. There was little depth to this film... sure, it has the potential to have more depth than most films, but both the supporting actors and the choice of dialogue ruined this movie for me. I got tired seeing more quick smash em up action scenes that seemed senseless. That part was simply pushed too far.

You just know what they are going to say before they say it: it has been done and said so many times before I can't believe people actually enjoy watching it so much. The only good scene with any depth was when Dent was talking to Batman about being good in a bad world... finally some philosophical undertones. The rest was garbage and boring. If they could have only made the script as clever as the James Bond scripts... of course keeping the dark theme but losing the idiot Hollywood writers.

I also dislike the fact that companies advertise their products in films... they should have made all the tech in the film no-name made for movie stuff... it would have matched the theme of Gotham much more. Instead, we got flashed ugly Dell monitors and Nokia cell phones.

And the Joker... great acting for sure, but stupid script, which really shows how good of an actor Ledger is... to turn mush into gold.

Overall, 3 stars out of 5.

[ghporter]

Freudling, you DO realize that this film is based on comic book characters, right? Not the "deepest" source material... Just sayin'

And whether you like it or not, Dells are ubiquitous worldwide, and so are Nokias. Maybe there's some product placement, but maybe you're just familiar enough with the hardware you mentioned to notice that they used the same props over and over.

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't hold out hope for a "life changing experience at the cinema." I'm looking for a fun action picture. It sounds like that's what the film is, too.