ok, first and formost go see it. For God's Sake see it. It is amazing, the script, the cast...This is spoiler free so don't worry...

My girlfriend and I caught an early show and I couldn't talk for about 15 minutes after. I will say, it wasn't like Iron Man where I was all "dude! Rocking! Awesome!!" no...this is actual cinema. Non comic fans will enjoy this...It was disturbing, it was un-nerving. Ledger was evil personified. Period. Everyone else was good as well mind you...but...well you will see.

Go see it

6 hours and counting...

Not sure we need a separate thread since the first one was right above this...

ah well

Saw it tonight

Seeing on gianto-screen tomorrow at 4...

just a spoiler free warning=dont worry about the scene after credits theres nothing after them

only reason is that because that is 50 pages of anticipation..this is the payoff

I liked it was very

Just got home from seeing it (1:15am screening for the win!)
Wow!

Pencil Magic For The

Simply an amazing film.

I'm still digesting it...

Fantastic performance from Ledger, definitely. Aaron Eckhart -- who knew? Just as compelling in his own way. I stayed away from spoilers, so it was a real surprise to me that Two-Face actually emerged as a character in this film. I kind of wish we'd never really seen the other half of his face (for a while I thought that's what they were going to do), because to me that would have been more effective. But I really liked what they did with Dent, how Two-Face was really a result of Dent being tragically stuck in one particular moment of his life. To me, he best represented the central theme of the film... that whole question of doing the right thing vs. giving up vs. turning into one of these soulless people yourself vs. accepting the reality that all of us have that quality to some degree.

Which is why I'm still not sure what I think about this movie. As brilliant as Ledger was, I kind of wonder why he was in the film. He seemed to distract from the point of the movie. I would rather have seen a movie about Two-Face, honestly. But as it is... I kind of feel like, what exactly was the point of the film? "The Dark Knight" as an appellation for Batman was very well handled, with them constantly referencing "white knights" and then finally referring to Batman as the "dark knight." But again... that had more to do with Dent than with the Joker, I felt. I'm really glad that they didn't give the Joker an origin (the "wanna know how I got my scars" thing was really perfect for him), but at the same time it robbed him of a context. I kind of felt like I had to have just seen the first film in order to get engaged with his character.

And speaking of which, I noticed that Batman had like zero story arc in this film. Well, that's not true, but he certainly seemed like a background player in his own movie. But his relationship with Rachel fell totally flat... maybe I liked Katie Holmes more than Maggie Gyllenhall, maybe they didn't really connect her to Bruce's past effectively enough, maybe (again) we were supposed to have just seen the first movie so we'd have that context, but without that, she just seemed to float there. I didn't find myself buying the relationship between Bruce and Rachel, and indeed it's Harvey who has by far the strongest reaction to her death. Bruce just sort of seems to absorb it. Which didn't ring true emotionally to me, especially in light of the first film where she was such a strong presence in his life.

And unfortunately for Batman, he has to do every scene in that Husky Batman Voice, which kind of covers over any kind of emotion that he might be wanting to express. To say nothing of the costume that virtually covers his entire body. I actually wanted to laugh in a couple of places where he was trying to be serious, because the Batman voice was so affected. I mean, it works great when he's being angry and stuff, but when he's emoting, it really doesn't work so much.

It was just kind of hard for me to immerse myself in this movie. There were a lot of great parts, but I'm having a hard time coalescing them into a whole. I might want to see it again, but really the biggest question I have about this movie is "why?" Like, what's the story that's being told here? It's not just about placing classic Batman villains into the Christopher Nolan Machine and seeing what they look like when they come out, is it? Because while that's cool as far as it goes, it's also a bit masturbatory. But I might want to see it again; maybe the pieces will connect more upon a second viewing.

The Joker, obviously, is the catalyst...a living MacGuffin, if you will. He's driving the story along, trying to make the two heroes of Gotham City give up their values. He succeeds with Dent, but not Batman. He just has actions, no motives...


This just seems nitpicky. Isn't this the case with any adaptation from one medium to another? These movies are about interpretation, not mimicry like "300" or "Sin City."

Agreed.
What would Dent's Arc be if there was no "Villain" to test his character?

Bought my tickets online, going to see it today at 4:00

Honestly, Ledger's Joker wasn't unsettling enough. It got close, but didn't get there...

The Batman voice didn't bother me as much as the new Batmask. it just looks ridiculous. That's all you can say about it. it's stupid looking.

I wasn't expecting two-face to look quite so burn victim-ey. It's got to be some of the best realistic CG, though. The only thing that really looks out of place is the eye and the teeth.

I must say, the ending surprised me. I wasn't expecting Dent to die and Batman to be made out a murderer. It felt completely natural, though, as if there was no over way for it to end.

"Do you want to see a magic trick?" is probably the best line in the entire film, IMO.

Edit: oh, and I forgot one thing... Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is a wonderful actress, so I have no idea why she sounded so frigging bland in the film.

Why not? He melted people's heads and everything!!

Going back to LMH's comment that Batman/Bruce had no character arc - Of course he doesn't.
Batman has never had a character arc... his arc is "oh I don't have to dress up as a flying rodent and beat people senseless everynight" - but of course that would mean the show is over. Otherwise he's been stuck in mid angst arc for some 50 years now. What other arch do you want him to have? what other arc has he ever had?

And to be fair -Nolan did explore that concept as much as he could...


But seriously addressing how disturbing the Joker was... I am not sure what more IST wanted him to do. This is by far the most disturbing the Joker has ever been film or comic. You can't push the franchise past the PG-13 barrier. If you didn't think his plans were pretty fukc'd up - I'd wager that you didn't fully understand it.

I think this film upped the ante not only for Super-Hero films, but also for Batman stories in any medium.
With the possible exception of Killing Joke, I have never seen the Joker addressed with quite the same level of serious attention paid to "lets discuss what this really means" .... Ceasar Romero didn't set the bar very high FYI...

Even the Killing Joke soft pedals in places. If you want to see what a "realistic" Rated-R "Joker" would be like - go watch Ichi The Killer.

it was the acting, not what happened in the film, hence why I said Ledger's Joker and not Joker. What Joker does in the film is disturbing on many, many levels, but I feel Ledger didn't properly communicate that.

Like I said - who are you comparing him to?
Nicholson, Romero, Hammil - I would argue that the bar wasn't set very high - if at all.

Hopkins in silence of the lambs.

They are similar characters. >.>

I suppose I let myself get swayed by all of the "Jesus christ he was a good actor" hype, which I'm normally immune to.

They are not similar characters at all.

Joker wants to change the world - Lecter wants fava beans.

sounds like a bad movie

I didn't really post my comments as anything more than my initial (not fully formed) reaction to the movie. I just felt it was odd that the title character was the least interesting person in the film. I've not really come to any hard and fast conclusions about the film yet, but "this is who the character is" sounds like an excuse. Nolan could make Batman anything he wanted him to be; it's his film.

However, as I have thought more about the film today, I do feel that there is an arc to Batman in this movie... he goes from someone who's pretty good at what he does, pretty much "in the groove," to someone who gets to the point of turning himself in and ending it all, to finally realizing that Batman is bigger than himself, and he doesn't have a choice in the matter anymore. But the way it plays out, it makes Batman seem like more of a victim of all of this than anything else. Perhaps because his onscreen presence is relatively limited or less arresting compared to most everyone else in the movie.

But even so, I'm struggling to answer the "so what" of it all. Do I care because I care about the character of Batman? (or Bruce Wayne?) I'm really not sure why it's important for me to reconcile myself to this movie. It just seems to only work, or matter, inasmuch as I buy into the whole Batman thing in the first place.

And I think that's what I was missing here. Batman Begins showed the audience why Batman was an interesting character, worth investing in. In The Dark Knight, he's totally taken for granted. And I mean everything about him is taken for granted. There's no real attempt with this movie to sell him to the audience. Okay, sure, they did that with the first movie. But every film should be able to stand on its own.

The weird part to me is that I can't find any fault with the acting or the directing or the script (though the editing was a bit choppy in places). I know that it was a really well done movie. But somehow it just didn't add up for me. I'm not sure if I really know why yet.

edit: lol to IST wanting more gruesomeness, there's the least shocking thing ever

I don't understand this beef you have with the movie at all. You're having a hard time liking it because it only works on the level of being a film about Batman? Or is it that you wonder what the point of another interpretation of Batman is? It seems like a pretty existential take on the movie....


The movie is selling Harvey Dent as a law-abiding alternative to Batman. We don't need to be reintroduced to Batman and everything he stands for cuz, its, you know, a sequel, nor do we really need the lowdown on any of the other returning characters either. I'm not sure what you would have included/excluded from the movie to make it "stand on its own." Again, I don't understand the qualms here. Its like you are trying to cram this square peg of a movie into a round hole in your brain...

Uh, no they are not. Lecter actually had empathy: the people he killed were not just random, if you've read the books or seen the movies you would know this. He chose to kill people who were generally just jerks. Not to mention he helped Clarice. Where as Joker had zero empathy, and kills people at random, for fun.

I don't feel like rebutting every critique of what I've said. I'm not reviewing the movie or anything. But I knew that this would happen because you know, everyone loved this movie and I didn't. I'm not trying to win an argument or anything; I'm just telling you how I felt about it. You telling me that I'm wrong won't change that.

I wasn't attempting to tell you that you were wrong...however posting what did and did not work for you and giving examples is at least an invitation to discussion. As I've stated, I don't understand how you approached the movie to come away from it with the opinions that you have, thus my attempts at discussion.

But whatever.

But I didn't.

Then again, you didn't really read my post, did you?

Has to wait until next week.

Going to see it on Imax apparently.

Wow...that was heavy.

*decompressing with cartoons right now*

I loved every inch of that movie. Ledger's performance, the whole story, Harvey's character going MUCH further in this film than I thought they'd go...just awesome.

I'd like to make a quick comment on what Madhammer was touching on--about the focus on Batman's character being taken for granted and maybe not as explored as in the prior movie. I sort of see that point, as the focus did go to other characters. But I think that focus was important. And it wasn't as if they ignored Bruce and didn't develop him at all. But yes, I think more of the attention went to the others first.

Now, I think that absolutely worked for the film. It was a bit of a chance for them to do that, and most films just won't. They have to bank on their main character, and for this one to take a little of that focus away from Bruce/Batman to develop and follow the other characters was rather bold. The way that Nolan did it worked out wonderfully. It really helped bring the whole thing together for me, personally.

Er...kay, not so quick. Eheh...

So many talking points, I'm still absorbing it all. This was a movie-goers movie for sure. I'd like to see more action stories handled with this kind of quality and--at least in the margins allowed in this kind of genre--realism.

LM, you're out of your mind.

This movie was the single greatest comic book movie ever made* and will probably be the greatest movie of the year. Its theme was strong and consistent, its characters were complex and real, the action was exciting. And even though the trailers spoilered me, I was too caught up in the film to think about it and let it ruin my enjoyment of the movie.

I am certain that The Dark Knight will stand as one of the Best Picture nominees when Hollywood decides to pat itself on the back for 2008.

I am not unconvinced that it might even actually win one of the big two awards (Picture or Director).












*speaking of, how much does that Watchmen trailer suck?

But I dont want it to suck!!!

Not that your comment has a lot of merit - you have been pretty actively Snyder Bashing for a while now.

Saw the movie last night and I was just floored. It really felt like they took Batman and put him into the real world. I just love the way the Joker played everyone. I love movies like that. Batman made me very happy. So, I've decided to keep my screen name.




Well then I'll pitch in here a say that it sucked hard. I have no idea what the movie is about and I don't care. The trailer was incredibly weak.

Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING!
The Joker was brilliant in every way, and making the pencil dissappear was hilarious. His plans were well thought out, especially when he broke out of jail. Playing the 2 ships against each other was also brilliant. He made the movie great IMO, and I can't wait to see it again. Luuv it

I did, but eh. I just watched the finale of "Avatar" and it was worth 1000 Dark Knights.

Oh, now you're just flamebaiting.

What's that got to do with Ledger's performance as Joker?

A lot

And it's certainly going to be weak against this movie, IMO- as it seems to be going for "OMG gritty realism."


TDK is probably the heaviest film I have experienced in recent memory. I don't know if the IMAX screen helped convey that, but it was deep and thought-provoking and not for kids.

Yeah, Batman took a back seat in this film as a character, but I'm okay with that. Gordon, Dent, and Joker would not have been possible if it weren't for the ideal of Batman; which is where I think Bats really fits in here. This is completely a story about regular people being heroes- where everyone, including Bruce, looks to the standard of a shadowy, imaginative character to constantly feed them hope for life and society. Batman Begins sets up that ideal, and dissolves the character of Batman in the sequel to create an icon status for good. It is stated repeatedly that Batman shouldn't be around forever, but his idea should as a model of perseverance for what is right and what needs to be done to preserve it. Is it representative of over 60 years of what Batman is? Eh, I couldn't really care. I was superbly entertained.

Ultimately I was left a little miffed by covering up what happened to Dent, as if lying about it all was the best decision. I think the ethics of that could have been explored more, along with the completely unnecessary "bat-sonar goggles" equipment that Bruce and Lucius Fox used. It was a tacked-on gimmick IMO, and didn't lend enough to the severity of (the totally revelant topic of) encroaching upon people's security. I think the best course would have been to leave that little McGuffin out.

But I would love to see this again on a regular big screen.

The Joker we saw in TDK IS The Joker for me now. He was the ultimate fulfilment of the character. No acid baths, just a twisted mo-fo with a clown fetish that unleashes his wrath on Gotham City.
He's like a serial killer who's able to harness his desires, wants, and needs into something resembling a plan (though he's very clear that he has non ).

Also, yes, Joker was presented as a serious character. He's not turning Gotham's water supply into Jell-O, he's a real threat to the people of the city who needs to be stopped.

And I think Ledger conveyed all of that perfectly. Everything, from his slight ticks to his mannerisms to his speech pattern screamed psycho.

In the end The Joker is all of that, a murdering psycho with a clown fetish, but he also wants to change the world. He believes that we're all capable of sinking to our lowest levels, and seeing us do so, as well as the apparent failure of decent society, amuses him.
It isn't a well-timed pun or a cleaver play of words that cracks him up, it's the failure and ultimate destruction of decent society that's the punchline.

Best damm psycho I've seen in a long time. He was the total package: funny, a psycho, and his plans were brilliant.

No, he's right. Some Nickelodeon show was way better than "The Dark Knight." And it was much more appreciable because it didn't require him to buy into the whole "airbending" thing just to enjoy it.

Yeah, that's what's happening. I post how I felt about the movie, everyone jumps my shit, and I'm flamebaiting.

I did say that I was thinking about seeing it again, to see if I would feel differently about it a second time. But I can't help it if I didn't really care about TDK the way I was hoping to. Don't think that my reaction isn't extremely disappointing to me.

My sense of humor is perhaps too dry in this case, yes?


I feel ya.

To defend LMH he never said he "didn't like the movie" and anyway I guess he doesn't need defending.
He can take care of himself. But i do notice that Pete's comments seem to be a little bruised when responding.
I hope you don't think I am baiting or anything, but I'm genuninely interested in your thoughts on the movie. It just seems like all the pieces of what would make a good superhero movie are in place. Specifically the tension between how silly it is to dress up in tights vs. these LARGER than LIFE characters having real tangible effects on normal people.

The struggle between Bat-MAN and Bat-ICON was completely set up in the first movie.

oh and Jerrod - you don't get to mock Avatar. It's simply not allowed.
I cant wait to see the Finale! I have been anticipating that almost as much as TDK.

Well, I'm not mocking it. Its just that I have my doubts its worth 1000 Dark Knights...

Plus, I have no idea what an airbender even is, and why he's the last of them.

Does not compute.

I'm with Jerrod. No clue.

Although I did sit through the Q&A portion of the Avatar panel at last year's SDCC waiting for the Hasbro one to start, and that show has got some scary rabid fans, so please don't hurt me if I have offended any of you Avatarts.

Fixed.

Anyway, HOT DAMN Batman was awesome. Just got back from seeing it and boy am I pleased. Ledger gave a stunning performance as the Joker and had the best lines in the whole movie. Anyone catch the reference to the 80's Batman movie at all? You know, Bruce's comment about the suit's neck being immobile? That totally made me


Two-Face was badass as well.

Well, that's really a reference to the every batman film from '89 until now, including Batman Begins.

But I did think it was awesome that they worked the actor's complaint into the Bruce Wayne character.

I thought that was cute.

Let's start this INTERNET train rolling: any speculations on a villain if there's a third film?

The first film worked a lot on establishing the base character, focusing on his might/power...this one focuses on the human struggle, the soul of Batman. If there were a third, I'd like to see it focus on his mind- and to that extent, finally realizing "the world's greatest detective" aspect of what the essence of Batman is historically. With that in mind, I'd like to see the Riddler.