Author Topic: So...the Dark Knight? (Read 61576 times)

ThePerm · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2008, 04:16:14 PM »

another thing about Robin...i can just imagine batman having robin with him...he is about to battle the zaniest craziest villian and then the villian sees Robin, so he calls the police explaining the sistuation....Seriously Batman WTF...i'm not even that crazy

Svevan · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2008, 06:42:23 PM »

I've seen this twice now. Overall I like it! The first time was much better than the second, tho.

All the good stuff people are saying here is true: gritty, realistic, morally complex, exciting action, great performance by Ledger.

Major negatives for me: stupid one-liners throughout, some from Ledger but mostly from Bale; overly moralistic and preachy, especially towards the end; movie loses steam after the highway action scene, which was especially beautiful; the whole ferry boat scene was pretty contrived and overcooked, and the final showdown between Batman and the Joker was lame; lots and lots and lots of talking, no reason for this movie to be two and a half hours. Though it has the appropriately dark "tone," I like my comic book movies to have more visual pizzazz than this film (more of a cartoon representation of big cities, a la Batman Returns or Spider-Man 2). Also, I've never liked Christopher Nolan's editing (too fast, no real understanding of geography so it's easy to get confused; don't even bother trying to figure out who does what in Batman Begins, there is NO context to any of the explosions or punches) but here it was much improved. Yet I still cannot abide Batman showing up in the middle of any room and saying "surprise!" especially when he is able to magically appear in the middle of a crowd of tuxedos and punch Joker square in the jaw. Did no one say "holy **** that guy is fucking magic!" or do they just expect Batman to appear in thin air?

Also, Two-Face's makeup was not in line with the film's gritty realism, so in any other context I may have liked it, but here it was out of place.

Again, highway action scene and every scene with Ledger (especially when he's wearing a dress) are excellent. Last 45 minutes, not so much.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #52 on:** July 23, 2008, 06:50:44 PM »

I thought Aaron Eckhart did an excellent job of holding his own, especially in the last third of the movie.

Svevan · « **Reply #53 on:** July 23, 2008, 06:52:37 PM »

His performance is fine, even great, but where the plot takes him is meandering.

EasyCure · « **Reply #54 on:** July 23, 2008, 07:50:17 PM »

Quote

Also, Two-Face's makeup was not in line with the film's gritty realism, so in any other context I may have liked it, but here it was out of place

what?

first of all i did think it was a grittier looking joker than any other i've seen, secondly even if i thought it didnt fit the look of the rest of the film, i'd love the contrast between him and everything else that was seen as "normal."

in fact, i didnt like how his clothes didnt stand out much in many of the scenes because it made him look as if he was dressed normally, but had the weird makeup on. There were a few scenes where you get to really see the colors on his suit and i thought to myself "now THATS the real joker"

ThePerm · « **Reply #55 on:** July 23, 2008, 08:09:35 PM »

what bitching about two face!!! He was PERFECT....Planet Gamecube Forums where nintendo fans come to bitch about EVERYTHING

comparison

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/theultimateperm/harvey.jpg

nickmitch · « **Reply #56 on:** July 23, 2008, 09:24:23 PM »

Two Face has to be given a few liberties given the nature of the character. However, most are not necessary since he looked like half his face burned off which didn't look unrealistic. The only thing about it was that is was the only visual that was over the top in the whole movie that you had to look at for more than 17sec.

EasyCure · « **Reply #57 on:** July 23, 2008, 10:06:27 PM »

i agree with theperm (for once?)

ShyGuy · « **Reply #58 on:** July 23, 2008, 11:55:10 PM »

Tommy Lee Jones was a horrible Two Face...

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #59 on:** July 24, 2008, 12:51:27 AM »

Also...it wasn't make up, at least not all of it. That's incredible CGI work. I'm pretty sure most (read: all) peoplethat say they didn't like it, or it was mediocre, just want to be able to say that. You do have to keep in mind that it's a fucking superhero movie.

Maverick · « **Reply #60 on:** July 24, 2008, 01:14:02 AM »

The only thing that clashed with the "realism" of the Noland films is his eye. But I can easily excuse that because it looked totally badass.

Stogi · « **Reply #61 on:** July 24, 2008, 02:42:27 AM »

Saw this in IMAX not an hour ago...

*Applauds*

They should end the batman trilogy or whatever they have planed NOW. No need to make a movie that will be worse.

ThePerm · « **Reply #62 on:** July 24, 2008, 03:53:05 AM »

if the stop now it will prove batman movies come in 2s, time to start another series! Holy Camp cycle batman..now with sin city and 300 out of the way comic book movies have a new meaning..and lol

http://cube.ign.com/dor/objects/17045/resident-evil/images/bio32.html

its kinda weird actually for that perticular pic of tommy lee jones as twoface, its actually a good picture, becuase it looked really goofy in the movie.

I was like HOLY **** yeah when i saw two fac's faces in dark knight, i didn't even think they were going to get to that plot in this movie. My only complaint is two face was a short lived character. He was there, he was cool, and then he died

Maverick · « **Reply #63 on:** July 24, 2008, 04:21:45 AM »

Maybe they were trying to stay in the "realism" route by killing him off early 'cause there's no way someone in that condition could last for long?

Svevan · « **Reply #64 on:** July 24, 2008, 04:27:01 AM »

Quote from: Brandogg on July 24, 2008, 12:51:27 AM

Also...it wasn't make up, at least not all of it. That's incredible CGI work. I'm pretty sure most (read: all) peoplethat say they didn't like it, or it was mediocre, just want to be able to say that. You do have to keep in mind that it's a fucking superhero movie.

C'mon, give me more credit than that. Perhaps contrasting it to the gritty realism was incorrect; rather I thought the effect was overdone, overused, and not very believable. It felt like they were showing off, and it was distracting.

Stogi · « **Reply #65 on:** July 24, 2008, 04:50:55 AM »

I thought it was horrifyingly disgusting and perfectly offset his other side.

EasyCure · « **Reply #66 on:** July 24, 2008, 11:38:09 AM »

Quote from: KashogiStogi on July 24, 2008, 04:50:55 AM

I thought it was horrifyingly disgusting and perfectly offset his other side.

which was perfect because his other side was a "perfect" pretty-boy herald as gothams White Knight

BranDonk Kong · « **Reply #67 on:** July 25, 2008, 12:19:14 AM »

I was just trying to be an anti-elitist, yet that in itself makes me an elitist.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #68 on:** July 25, 2008, 05:24:40 AM »

I think people need to get out more if they call most of what happens in the movie realistic. It was a great movie but come on, it was far from a "realistic".

EasyCure · « **Reply #69 on:** July 25, 2008, 08:19:43 AM »

i think we're all talking about it being realistic when compared to the later, extra campy, batman films. I know i am.

UltimatePartyBear · « **Reply #70 on:** July 25, 2008, 11:34:54 AM »

EasyCure has a time machine! Tell me, what villains appear in films later than this one? I hope it's Bat-Mite!

On a serious note, did anyone here hate Batman Begins or at least find its big villainous plot appallingly stupid? If so, I'd like to get your opinion on whether The Dark Knight is worth bothering with. Thanks.

Svevan · « **Reply #71 on:** July 25, 2008, 12:14:21 PM »

Quote from: GoldenPhoenix on July 25, 2008, 05:24:40 AM

I think people need to get out more if they call most of what happens in the movie realistic. It was a great movie but come on, it was far from a "realistic".

Realism isn't about being "accurate to reality." Realism is attempting to represent a version of reality without gloss or stylistic obfuscation. It, in and of itself, is a style. EasyCure is correct when saying that we're applying the statement when compared to previous Batman films. Really, when compared to every other comic book movie ever, the Nolan Batmans clearly use "realism" as their aesthetic base.

P.S. I hate Batman Begins; it's edited like a trailer, with none of the humor of a Michael Bay film.

Maverick · « **Reply #72 on:** July 25, 2008, 07:09:26 PM »

Svevan, what are some of your favorite movies?

I'm testing a theory.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #73 on:** July 25, 2008, 07:19:21 PM »

It is too bad that Nolan wants a more "realistic" lineup of villains I'd love to see some of the more supernatural villains like Clayface and Mr. Freeze show up but fitting with the dark tone of Nolan's Batman. TAS showed you can have these characters and not be laughable if done right.

EasyCure · « **Reply #74 on:** July 26, 2008, 02:56:05 PM »

Quote from: UltimatePartyBear on July 25, 2008, 11:34:54 AM

EasyCure has a time machine! Tell me, what villains appear in films later than this one? I hope it's Bat-Mite!

On a serious note, did anyone here hate Batman Begins or at least find its big villainous plot appallingly stupid? If so, I'd like to get your opinion on whether The Dark Knight is worth bothering with. Thanks.

haha i didnt get it until i re-read my post more thoroughly. i'm sure you know i meant the later batman films AFTER tim burtons Batman.

News:

Author Topic: So...the Dark Knight? (Read 61576 times)