[Zorander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfusion770 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I posted in the other thread- overall I thought it was good but overrated- 7 to 7.5 out of 10. There was a lot more action (more satisfying?) than BB, but I honestly think BB was a better movie. BB had me willing to buy into the possibility of every action sequence while TDK pushed the envelope way too far, way too many times. It is obvious that Batman, the Joker and Dent are super human in this movie, which, based on my expectations from BB, had me disappointed. The Jokers schemes were too elaborate and worked out just a little too perfectly for me as well. Add in a few shoddy pacing/ editing issues and the movie is not as perfect as most others seem to think. All in all, I find it difficult to effectively express my feelings as there really is a lot to like (Ledger was a great villain, great action sequences, twisted complex plot, fast paced), I just think the nearly universal praise needs to be checked a bit. Rather than being nit picky, I think I just expected the same attention to detail and adherence to reality (with a relatively slight suspension of disbelief) that made BB so great.

Agreed on those points. I felt the pace was quite rushed with so many twists being thrown in more often than not and the hospital demolition scene went too perfectly for me (how could no one at that hospital notice even one of the many explosives planted there?). I thought BB was a superb movie and I was told DK was even better by miles. Well, it was good and very action-packed indeed but I do not feel it trounces BB (which I think scores better in terms of storyline coherence & suspense build-up). The DK is simply a very action- (and explosive-) packed Batman show with an even darker theme than BB. The fact that this is also Ledger's "final performance" (a superb one too) can only do good for DK's rating.

Overall a superb show nonetheless but it did not leave me wanting to see the next Batman show as badly as BB did to me.

 

[wakeride74]

I saw it Friday at the Dome here in Pleasant Hill (East Bay folks know what I'm talkin about

).

I thought it was awesome, Ledger was simply amazing and stole the show IMO. I agree that he and this Batman was so different from Burton's that it is hard to compare but Ledger just took it to a new level. Do I think it was better that BB? Not the story but again Ledger's performance was just amazing. Will certainly see it again and grab the Blu-ray on day and date.

Spoiler Alert!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My complaints:
1. A few of the action sequences were not believable and felt more like superhero stuff and less realistic (like BB). This kind of seemed at odds with the style of this Batman franchise.
2. Two face's appearance was taken too far... should have just been severe burns leaving him juicy and crispy.
3. Morgan Freeman did not get enough screen time. I really liked him in BB and for a 2hr 32min run time he should have had more of a role.

btw - was super juiced to see the new Terminator trailer with Christian Bale! I had no idea that was in the works.

 

[lmilhan]

Here are my opinions on the film - pasted from the "rate the last movie you watched" thread:

[size=x-large]WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD![/size]


Overall a very enjoyable film, but it had a few missteps that just kept it from being a 5 star movie.

First, the good:

Heath Ledger as the Joker was incredible. It's hard to say if he should win an oscar at this point in time, but it is my opinion that his performance was indeed worthy enough to earn him a spot as a nominee. IF he is indeed nominated, I would say that it is a safe bet that the academy will likely award him the prize based on a pity vote - which is sad, really.

Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was also incredible, although I am sure the general public will overlook his performance, and instead focus on Heath Ledgers performance. But I have to give kudos to this guy, because he gave a solid performance.

The ethical issues along with the moral decisions that are made throughout the movie really suck you in, and make you think to yourself "wow, how would I act in the same situation?" This aspect of the film was handled very well - bravo.

The bad:

Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. WOW, what a mis-cast. Her acting was flat, and she is (for lack of a better word) ghastly looking. It is this very mis-cast that took away an entire star from my rating. When she died, I felt absolutely nothing - that's how little I cared about her character. Off of the top of my head, I can think of 10+ women who would have been a better choice to fill this role. I'm not sure who she slept with to get this part, but the movie suffered as a result of her presence. Sorry Maggie Gyllenhaal fans, but she was wrong, wrong, WRONG for this movie/roll!

Other than the opening bank heist, the first act of the movie moved very slow, and to be quite honest started to bore me. But it started to pick up steam soon after, and got better as the movie progressed (thankfully).

Oddly enough, Batman was one of the most boring characters in the film (second only to Rachel Dawes). All of the other supporting characters, especially Joker and Two-Face, carried the film and made it interesting. Bale's acting was stiff, when he disguised his voice it sounded absolutely ridiculous and corny and none of his dialogue was profound and or interesting. He doesn't have a single memorable or quotable line of dialogue in the entire movie. The Joker on the other hand...


In summary, overall a very good movie that was just south of being a classic. Ledgers performance lives up to the hype, but the movie overall does not. Definitely worth the price of admission, but don't go in expecting it to live up to all of the hype it has been getting recently.

 

[nysulli]

I thought the movie was very well done, but I agree that batman as a character was almost missing something.

but perhaps that was intentional, after all, it seemed as if the the movie focused more on how the events and actions of those around batman influenced his decisions in the end

 

[Hadden]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lmilhan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. WOW, what a mis-cast. Her acting was flat, and she is (for lack of a better word) ghastly looking. It is this very mis-cast that took away an entire star from my rating.

Ghastly? That's rather strong, don't you think? the girl is hardly that. She has a quirky beauty you either like or don't. I am not into the Hollywood Doll look myself. Bores me to death. I have not seen the movie yet, but I can see on paper how she could play intelligent/dark in a way other actresses could not. That's too bad if she came across as flat. Can really be distracting in a movie if someone isn't playing well.

 

[lmilhan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hadden /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ghastly? That's rather strong, don't you think? the girl is hardly that. She has a quirky beauty you either like or don't. I am not into the Hollywood Doll look myself. Bores me to death. I have not seen the movie yet, but I can see on paper how she could play intelligent/dark in a way other actresses could not.

Nope, ghastly is the best word I can come up with to describe her, at least for my tastes. She is like what, 30 years old? She looked like she was 45 years old to me. No matter what they did to her costume or makeup wise, nothing made her look good. Hair up, hair down, little makeup, lots of makup - didn't matter, she looked like a hag. It was hard to watch the leading men not only kiss her, but use lines that called her "beautiful", etc - I'm not sure how they kept a straight face.

And for the record, I also dislike the "Hollywood Doll Look" - as you put it. But I'm not really into the ghastly, homely look either.

Looks aside, her acting was terrible in this movie, and her presence pulled the whole experience down a notch IMO. A dreadful mist-cast.

Oh well, to each his own I guess.

 

[Edwood]

Watched it yesterday.

Loved it. Very Dark. Dark indeed.

Spiderman take note, this is how you introduce more than one villian.

-Ed

 

[ClieOS]

Haven't really saw the movie yet, but I was in the movie theater last week (for Hell Boy 2, which turns out to be a waste of money) and saw the trailer. There is some much focus on the Joker in the trailer, I was thinking the movie should be renamed as 'The Joker's Story, featuring batman as sidekick.'

 

[milkpowder]

Liked it enough the first time to go and watch it again at IMAX tomorrow!

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Liked it enough the first time to go and watch it again at IMAX tomorrow!

funny...same for me and my wife. we saw it last night and will go see it on IMAX later this week.

best movie this year by far, and the most personally enjoyable movie since ratatouille...good stuff.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I saw it on opening night. This is only the second time in my life I saw a film on opening night. I too, really liked it. Who knows, it could get Best Picture. What I loved most about it, is it didn't seem like a Super-hero movie. I came walking away from it thinking that the screen play was the star of the film. Since when does one say something like this with such a genre piece? Yes, I too thought Heath Ledger did a brilliant job, however, I thought beforehand, that his performance was going to hijack the film. I do not think that he was bigger than the film and that is why I thought he was so successful. The other performances were brilliant also. I know everyone is talking about Heath Ledger but for my money, I was blown away by Aaron Eckhardt. He was really able to divert my attention away from the Joker and I was amazed with the emotion and conviction he brought to his role. I do not even like Morgan Freeman that much but I loved him in his role too. The blatant reality of Gotham as a everyday contemporary city was such an unexpected and welcome alternative from the stylized sets of the past. I guess, if I could criticize one thing, it would be the lighting from certain scenes. I don't thinking the lighting on the Joker at the end when he was hanging upside down was very convincing. That scene was a spectacular one to me and it was let down by the lighting. Christian Bale is the best Batman yet. Oh yes, something else I didn't like. What was up with the the dogs? It seemed so besides the point. Also, sometimes Batman's monotone voice got to be too. So I know I am nitpicking but I really did enjoy the film. Fighting for truth, justice, and the American way, is so last century at this point. I am not so sure how great this Batman movie really is, but it is the first of its kind for the 21st century.

I was thinking about my comments today about this movie. I was comparing Jack Nicholson's performance and Heath Ledger's. After consideration I thought that Nicholson's performance was the superior of the two. I think part of the reason for Ledger's convincing performance had to do with costume design. His Joker looked more brutally real than the cartoonish Nicholson. In fact, Nicholson's Joker looks so dated to me already. It will be interesting to see when and if Ledger's Joker will look dated. But because Ledger's look is more rooted in reality, I think that grounds his behavior also; it gives his menacing ways more weight. Mind you, I feel like Ledger's performance is terrific, don't get me wrong. However, I believe that Ledger builds his character only up to a certain point and then he seems to plateau and even out his performance. There just are not as many facets Ledger brings to his Joker. Nicholson, I feel, brought more of a dynamic range to his characterization. His was more far reaching and probing. The changes in Nicholson's facial expressions alone told its own story about the Joker. I was thinking about the scene when Nicholson was in an art museum looking at a Francis Bacon painting. All he said was, "don't touch that, I like this one". His entire being seemed glued to the painting while at the same time he almost seemed insane. Is the Joker brilliant, a genius, or just crazy? Lock him up and throw away the key. And when he delivered the line, "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pure moonlight"? It is unforgettable. As great as Heath was in his role, Nicholson paved the way. So that is that. I was also thinking too about how the Dark Night was written and the angle at which the writer's approached the character of the Joker and Two Face. I just couldn't get out of my head the similarities between this film and No Country for Old Men. Javier Bardem's character was in a way, not evil, but one face of death, one which we will all face and that is inevitable. Hence, the compressed "air" tank as his weapon of choice. The coin tossing in Batman and the Joker's uninterest in monetary and earthly possessions hints at a spirit larger than his embodiment. Very similar to No Country for Old Men. However, the dialog in No Country for Old Men is in a league of its own. We have Cormac McCarthy to thank for that.

 

[mr56k]

Watched it last night. Really enjoyed it. I did think the movie was a little long but not bad. I also agree that the Joker and two face made the movie. Batman was almost boring in comparison lol. Best joker ever! So crazy throughout. Best parts of the movie= when the joker was in the scenes. I rate it 8 out 10.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Watched it yesterday.

I saw it Friday.

Quote:

Loved it. Very Dark. Dark indeed.

Me too and so true.

Quote:

Spiderman take note, this is how you introduce more than one villian.

With the money Marvel handed out to make Spidey 3, it could have been the best superhero film ever. Instead it was a horrible mess of epic failures. This film however was superb in almost all ways, save for Maggie, gosh she sucked in this film, I mean really really sucked. As horrifying as it is for me to declare this, I would have prefered Katie Holmes back in action to Maggie. YIKES! When they killed her off I cheered. I figured, the two low points of the past two films have been this character and the actresses who played her. Now that she is gone, Dark Knight 3 or whatever...can actually be close to 9.5 or 10.

Oh and Heath, who I generally have detested in all his roles, was beyond superb. Tim Burton's babies were entirely different beasts so it is hard to compare directly. He going for quirky 70's style comic taling and this film clearly in the Miller camp. I will always prefer the dark and gritty but can appreciate the campy and quirky. But when I think of the Joker, particularly after the Long Hallowe'en or Miller's Killing Joke...I gotta say Heath made the Joker come alive. Brilliant!

If I had my way I'd give Downey the Best Oscar nod and the Ledger the Best Supporting. Comic Geeks for the win!

 

[hauntingtheholy]

Raechel was horribly mis-cast in both new Batman movies - was the weakest character in both. Surely they ought to be able to find a decent actress to play her? Weird.

Christian Bale is the ULTIMATE Bruce Wayne, and that's more important than the action scenes as Batman. I think they should have focused on giving him as many kick ass lines as possible as Bruce. Remember his line in Begins: "....a guy who dresses up like a BAT clearly has issues....." More of that, please!

 

[mr_baseball_08]

I'm not sure I wanted to hear more from Bruce this go around.

I thought it was pretty blatant that in this movie, he's listening to everyone else and taking in their opinions and letting those opinions mold him into who he is going to be.

Another thing no one has mentioned is the soundtrack. I think Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard did a phenomenal job and the music sucked me into everything that was going on, on screen.

I thought the movie was fantastic and can't wait to see it again on DVD.