The Dark Knight (DVD/BR Release!)

Cnn article on heath winning an oscar...interesting read.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

If he's that good, I could see him at least being nominated. And if that happens, I can see another tasteless and ignorant blog being posted by the recently unretired pro wrestler, the Ultimate Warrior, not to mention more theatrics from the groups who picked his memorial services simply because he once played a gay character.

Ultimate Warrior is wrestling again? Wow.

I just saw the video of him back in the ring shaking the ropes and beating some ass. I had to admit I was waiting for the gorilla press slam.

I hope Heath gets nominated if is performance is as good as we've heard.

Nice poster cy. Looks better than the rest.

Actually saw the trailer for the first time before watching Hancock, looked just amazing.

Ultimate Warrior is back? My god. My freshman roommate was a mega wrestling fan and he used to watch those Ultimate Warrior tapes like at 4 in the morning.

He's back wrestling for Nu-Wrestling Evolution, an Italian promotion. In between those appearances, he still dispenses his own form of "wisdom" such as alleging Heath Ledger was a drug addict and he deserved to die.

Been waiting for this movie since last month. Been wanting to watch movies that have been related to the comics lately. I hope this movie would be good though and Joker too.

I just saw this movie, it was really really good imo. I liked the storyline and the twists and turns were very good, Heath was awesome as the Joker and he clearly moves ahead of Jack Nicholson in my book. I reckon it will probably be up there for movie of the year and Ledger has to get nominated.

Damn, I'll get to see this over the weekend.

great movie,gonna watch it! batman is back!

this movie was seriously gold and heath flat out steals the show.

Well, I'll have to be a spoilsport. As always.

Far better than Batman Begins. Nolan doesn't do justice to and continues to unexplore Batman villians. Bale needs to just play Wayne (since it's Patrick Bateman and I wouldn't want it anyway) as the Batman voice still isn't working. Jack's was the Joker of the high rises and of class, and Ledger's is the Joker left to the streets. (As was long clear going in.) But they could easily be interchangable. One could easily see Ledger's version pulling the ol' "you wouldn't hit a man in glasses would you?"

Ledger apparently had it in his contract that only he was to be given any good dialogue. I guess it's hard to write an engaging plot for movies anymore, especially comic-based movies. I also thought this one was supposed to focus on Batman as a detective. (A seriously underplayed aspect of the character in all forms of media.) Maybe I just heard wrong. Maybe I'm too morally bankrupt, but...well, let's just say a lot of people have been calling this a "darker" take on Batman, or praising this for its "murky morals" and I don't see it or am greatly unimpressed. (These people also apparently haven't paid attention to Batman comics since the 1960s.)

Also, anyone blown away (and yes, they are out in abundance) by the idea that Batman and the Joker are opposite sides of the same coin hasn't been paying attention.

Still, it's the second best Batman film. But the Watchmen trailer is the most exciting thing about this Friday. Although I still don't know why it needs a movie. It's not a 300 style work. Hopefully it won't have a stupid "Adventures of McNulty in Sparta" style B-plot added...or be completely butchered like V for Vendetta.

Great magic trick.

Why do you feel that the villains were unexplored? I don't agree with that at all. Which Batman movie did you like better than this one?

Because they were. Ra's and Crane were horribly used and turned into meaningless characters. Dent and the Joker are both made into simplistic one-dimensional versions. The Joker is basically just a philosophical asshole.

Batman Returns plz. Even with its absurdities.

(And whatever happened to all those people at that party...)

Really? Returns? I can see it appealing to your sense of humor but a better movie?

I meant in TDK not Begins. I felt the same way about Ra's and Crane being unexplored but didn't mind it too much since the first one, after all, was Batman "Begins", leaving not much room to explore other characters.

I fail to see how the Joker was unexplored. Nolan chose to not provide any background to keep him "absolute". I always thought the Joker was too ridiculous of a character to be portrayed in any other media than comics or animation but this Nolan's take was very believable in a twisted way. Yes, he's a philosophical asshole but isn't that the whole point?

I've never really read any of the comics so I'm not expert. I just watched the movies and the 90's animated series. Ooh, Batman Beyond too. I loved that show.

I really liked it as a film and didn't try to watch it as any "adaptation" or "version". And come on, it was so freakin' entertaining. Especially in IMAX.

Yes, the magic trick part was epic.

Nah, it was boring. Not as mind-numbingly boring as Begins, but pretty boring nevertheless. I can't believe the response it is getting, nor the hype it got beforehand. "This is probably the most INTENSE movie I have seen in my life." "One of the finest pieces of cinema ever." "The Joker was right, it was social experiment. But it was us (the audience) who were the participants." Comparing it to The Wire. And so on. Come on. It is a fine production, but the underlying story and characterization is hardly anything remarkable.

And I didn't watch it as an "adaptation" because it's not. But it is a "version" of the Batman mythos, but makes it simplistic, throws in a vapid plot and dialogue, and boring action sequences. Plus a near endless bunch of plot holes. And descends into a bunch of crappy symbolizing and gets away from the best part, which is the Joker.

The Joker isn't ridiculous, he's a very logical and rational character. He is sane but experiences the world around him as insane. This Joker just wants to bring chaos to order because of some philosophical positioning and is either a random insane terrorist or tactical mastermind depending on what Nolan plotted. Nolan's take was slightly believable, but not anymore so than Burton's, or Moore's or any other take on the character in the comics. Especially in the wake of Moore's cementing of the concept of Joker = Batman. Ledger's performance is what is special, the iteration of character is not.

And I don't need "background" for exploring a character. But turning Ra's into an asshole who wants to randomly cleanse Gotham, Crane into a random pawn of said asshole, Dent into um...no spoiler, and the Joker into just an asshole, loses all the complex aspects of the characters. Batman's rogues gallery, like himself, is not cool because of their gadgets or powers, but because of the fact that they aren't really insane or just criminals.

There was no reason to use Ra's, Crane or any "supervillians" in Begins. In The Dark Knight, Nolan poorly tries to explore Batman's effect on Gotham and how the Joker and Dent are the first of the wave of freaks. An old concept in Batman, but one that only makes sense if there weren't the "freaks" previously. But there were, with Ra's and Crane. There is plenty of regular crime to actually fight in a "Begins." Especially with Begins wasting so much time trying to explain why Bruce Wayne became Batman.

Yeah, Returns was a better movie. Aside from absurd action sequences using penguins and circus freaks, it is a better plot. Keaton is a better Batman, the modern Catwoman is there, the beginnings of the decartooning of the Penguin is there (and I don't understand Nolans' statement that the Penguin is unrealistic considering the changing of his character) as well as Christopher Walken. It is tight, compact, ties all the characters together easily and does not present the rogues as simplistic "villians" instead letting them be more complex. (Remember, Walken is the villian of the film. Kyle and Cobblepot are sympathetic characters and mirror images of Wayne.)

EDIT, TEN HOURS LATER:
I feel like I should add something.

I don't think this is a bad movie. It is a good movie, and considering the movies that come out today, it might even be a great movie. And I am looking forward to watching it again (but not paying for it...so um...when it comes on TV...yeah that's it...) especially in hopes of changing my opinion on it. (After about the fifth time I realized Batman Returns is amazing, and after every time, I watch if its on TV and nothing else is, I realized Batman Begins is terrible.)

Also, I think extended action sequences are incredibly boring. And this movie had a wee bit of those. Along with some of the cliched things that were done with non-Joker characters.

My reaction is primarily a counternarrative to the obscene hype and response. Nolan's take on things are only original if you're like KevC and only know of the original movie series and the freaking amazing animated series. (Even though they are hardly divorced from the animated series and Burton's films.) Which I assume most people are. I'm also still incredibly disappointed in Nolan's ability to do any characterization with any of the characters, maybe he can't handle a cast of more than two and a half primary characters. (see: Memento) Speaking of two and a half, this movie has that many hours and yet it still seems paced in mindless frenzy and blur.

My disappointment is strongly focused on the pre and post-release hype though. This isn't a "darker" Batman, it doesn't have "gray areas." Like Little Miss Sunshine and Red Eye (unless it was actually a brilliant literary critique on the genre...which is what Wes Craven should be telling people), this is only the finest piece of cinema if the only other piece of cinema you've seen is Beerfest. The Joker is one-dimensional, Dent and others are, cliched as it is to say, cliched and I still don't ever feel like Batman even gives a shit.

Of course, I also thought The Phantom Menance was fifty times the movie as Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith combined. (Along with containing the single greatest scene in Star Wars.) And that last one was praised as "dark" and full of "grey areas" where, like a Sith, I only saw "absolutes" and "black and white-good and evil-white knights and dark knights" everywhere. Along with shit dialogue, characterizations and plotting.

If there is brilliance deserving of the praise, it is mildly the Joker's plotting and things being "all part of the plan." And then enthusiastically when he shifts gears and decides to narrow from doing clever unpleasant things to Gotham (which is also uncharacterized still in the Nolan series) to doing clever unpleasant things to Batman. Although after that it all falls apart and the Joker's plotting along with the movies becomes lackluster. (Especially with the outcome we got..."darker" Batman with that kind of outcome? I don't think so.)

I also thought this one was supposed to focus on Batman as a detective. (A seriously underplayed aspect of the character in all forms of media.)
Also, anyone blown away (and yes, they are out in abundance) by the idea that Batman and the Joker are opposite sides of the same coin hasn't been paying attention.

Ditto on those two things.

I feel that they made Batman dumber by not giving some emphasis on his detective skills or knowledge. It reminds me of that scene in Begins where Wayne can't understand what Fox was saying about the toxin. Batman knows those shite, in the comics anyway.

[Lean]

*shortcuts on pointing things out*

I think the movie was great. But two-and-a-half hours won't be enough to show a character's background. Maybe on the third film Batman will be a detective, once he "overcomes" being the "vigilante" character he was introduced in this particular franchise.

I also think that Heath Ledger did a great job being Joker, with all due respect to Jack Nicholson. And that magic trick of his in this movie is flat out hilarious.

Edited twice for the Jackal:
[spoiler]Anyway, the Batcave turned into a high-tech Matrix-like chamber. I thought only the Wayne Manor was burnt down in Begins.

to see the Batmobile destroyed.[/spoiler]

I've also seen Batman Forever (never saw it on theaters, honestly), and I think that was a kid's movie.

Last edited by Lean on Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kindly refrain from not telling us stuff is destroyed?

Kthnxbai.

Bitch.

I've also seen Batman Forever (never saw it on theaters, honestly), and I think that was a kid's movie.

Batman Forever != Batman Returns.

Maybe on the third film Batman will be a detective, once he "overcomes" being the "vigilante" character he was introduced in this particular franchise.

But this character is the same exact one as in the comics. In the comics he's a "vigilante" character. However, he's always won Gordon over not for being the only one who wants to fight crime, but the only one who wants to do real police work. Batman investigates, thinks through things and is the one who is supposed to be not just two steps but five hundred steps ahead of everyone through his thinking and detective work, not cool toys.

Yeah, Batman is a master at thinking on his feet, and beating up dudes. But that's only half of the character's crime-fighting prowess. And that is what me and shadowgrin (I may have him wrong) are talking about here.

I can't imagine this Batman spending time everyday thinking of ways to kill the rest of the Justice League.

Batman Forever != Batman Returns.

Yes, I forgot that Burton isn't responsible for Batman Forever.

But this character is the same exact one as in the comics. In the comics he's a "vigilante" character. However, he's always won Gordon over not for being the only one who wants to fight crime, but the only one who wants to do real police work.

I, too, ain't familiar with the comics.

Batman investigates, thinks through things and is the one who is supposed to be not just two steps but five hundred steps ahead of everyone through his thinking and detective work, not cool toys.

Yeah, Batman is a master at thinking on his feet, and beating up dudes. But that's only half of the character's crime-fighting prowess. And that is what me and shadowgrin (I may have him wrong) are talking about here.

I can't imagine this Batman spending time everyday thinking of ways to kill the rest of the Justice League.

No misunderstanding there, got it right.

In summary of what benji said, preparation is very invaluable for Batman, he considers it half of the battle (Art of War?). He has plans from A to Z, determines all the possible outcomes, and even he knows that plans don't always go right and that's where he uses his wits on the fly. Even the Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) considers Batman more dangerous than Superman (who sometimes go berserk).

Batman's contingency plans are always lethal. I wonder what his plans are to neutralize the Lantern corps.

Also, I think extended action sequences are incredibly boring. And this movie had a wee bit of those. Along with some of the cliched things that were done with non-Joker characters.

^ This. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had A.D.D. as Nolan seemed intent on eliminating any subtlety whatsoever from the film. Unpredictable scene change every minute or so, hundreds of people dying, a staggering amount of action movie cliches, and rather weak dialogue.

It was entertaining but no masterpiece. I was expecting more with all this hype - I don't even understand what was "dark" about it. Just a total cookie-cutter good guy vs. bad guy, city is threatened by an evil villain thing as I expected.

Wow. Just that. Wow.

Let me go clean the cum out of my boxers.

I really enjoyed the movie. It had been a while since a movie kept me on the edge of my seat like that
I had a few weak moments, but overall it's quite a masterpiece in my book...and I'm not even a superhero movie fan in the first place.