2081 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

I really enjoy Liam Neeson in BB. He's a damn fine character.

Really? I thought he phoned it in; Ledger's Joker is a far better main villain.

[Qwerty]

I really enjoy Liam Neeson in BB. He's a damn fine character.

Really? I thought he phoned it in; Ledger's Joker is a far better main villain.

I think Neeson's Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul is one of the more interesting villains in the collection of Batman films. Probably the villain fans will overlook the most, because he's hardly ever over the top or theatrical. Perhaps because he doesn't exactly come off as a 100% bad-nasty-villain character.

Neeson is perfect for the role, in my opinion. His interactions with Wayne are brief, but laced with menace in the second half:

"If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

[Harmsway]

I don't think Neeson phoned it in. Neeson phoning something in is Qui-Gon Jinn in EPISODE I. I think he does quite well with the material he's given. The real reason he doesn't have as much effect as he could have is that he's really not in BEGINS very much at all, and when he is, he's not being developed himself, but rather helping to develop Bruce.

Perhaps I'm more able to read into what little is there of Ra's in BEGINS because I know what Nolan's referencing in the one brief moment where Ra's talks about his history. And that story is a powerful one. Had the audience actually been given that information, I think Ra's would have had all the more power as a character.

[The Dove]

Well I finally saw Dark Knight today! OH MY GOD!! It was awesome... I'm still completely overwhelmed by how powerful it was. I'll definitely be seeing it again next week!!

So.. some of my thoughts...

How does it compare to Batman Begins? Hard to say at this point.. In actuallity they are too different. The Dark Knight is the logical step up from Batman Begins. My initial reaction to the film, was one of slight disappointment in the fact that there was an overdose of action, that the plot was too conveluded and that they tried to cram too much into the film. Where as Batman Begins is much more simplistic and bared down. However, having a few hours to now fully digest the movie, its beginning to all come clean and again, I will have to see it again to fully comprehend the storyline.

Now as to Heath Ledger... Jack Nicholson who?? I am totally blown away by Ledger's Joker!! Words can't describe just how brilliantly he pulled off the Clown Prince of Crime!! He definitely deserves the Oscar... and I agree that the character CANNOT be recast if they decided to bring Joker back in the next film.

Aaron Eckhart...just awesome as Harvey Dent / Two-Face.. and solid performances from Michael Cain and Morgan Freeman... Wow! I really don't know what else to say.. must take a night and collect more thoughts on this truely remarkable film.

Oh..one thing to note...Trailer #1 before the movie started went as follows.. *Chair scrapes across room* *voice over* " I was always interested to meet you.. I heard so much about you from Vesper" " If she hadn't killed herself, we would have had you too!!" ...you know the rest!

Audience reaction to the QoS trailer? ...Excited silence is how I would put it!!

[Mike00spy]

After seeing it for the second time, the 3rd act is really a let down and ruins part of the experience for me.

Spoiler

1) Joker's escape from jail is a MAJOR plot hole. You don't guard a prisoner like that- leaving him uncuffed and with a policeman in the room. Considering he only had a piece of glass in his hand, no cop could get a clear shot at him? Not even when he grabbed the cell? From that range, a shot to the head would have killed the Joker before he even thought about using that piece of glass to slit the cop's throat.

And, after the cell phone bomb- I am to believe that it killed everyone in the room except the Joker? Please!

2) Harvey Dent's arc takes a bad turn after his burning. I know why Dent would want revenge on the people responsible for the death if his love. Makes sense. But, he spares the one person most responsible, the Joker? Then, the mob boss as well? They should have been #1 and #2 on the list!!!! Instead, he goes after Gordon's family???? How many of you would let the Joker live in the same situation? None.

3) The Joker lets himself get cornered in a building with no escape? But, he then takes the trouble to arrange an elaborate hostage situation in case the cops come?

4) By far the most head scratching was letting the Joker live. This was only done to set up a sequel, and it ruins the ending of the film. Let's not forget that Batman had no problems letting Liam Neeson's character die in the last film. Why does the Joker deserve to be saved? Besides, the Joker's plunge off the building was self-defense, why did Batman have to go out of his way to save him? Really Really stupid there.

I 100% loved the movie until the above scenes.

Edited by Mike00spy, 20 July 2008 - 04:20 AM.

[Harmsway]

Spoiler

2) Harvey Dent's arc takes a bad turn after his burning. I know why Dent would want revenge on the people responsible for the death if his love. Makes sense. But, he spares the one person most responsible, the Joker? Then, the mob boss as well? They should have been #1 and #2 on the list!!!! Instead, he goes after Gordon's family???? How many of you would let the Joker live in the same situation? None.

You clearly don't understand the character. Two-Face is bound to the judgment of the coin. The coin decided, and that's that, whether he likes the results or not.

Spoiler

3) The Joker lets himself get cornered in a building with no escape? But, he then takes the trouble to arrange an elaborate hostage situation in case the cops come?

I think he did the hostage thing for fun. He just enjoys that sort of thing, and it would keep the cops busy while he waited for Batman to show up. I'm not sure he was really planning to escape, period.

Spoiler

4) By far the most head scratching was letting the Joker live. This was only done to set up a sequel, and it ruins the ending of the film.

No, it's been a long-established element of the characters' relationship. Batman can't bring himself to kill the Joker because he can't bring himself to kill anyone. He'll never take that step. You don't have to like it, but it's not a "sequel" move. It's been a defining element of their relationship in the comics for ages. Even in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, when Batman resolves to finally kill the Joker once and for all, he can only bring himself to break the Joker's spine... the Joker finishes off the job himself, mocking Batman for being unable to finish him off.

Spoiler

Let's not forget that Batman had no problems letting Liam Neeson's character die in the last film.

And that's a major issue with the end of BEGINS. It doesn't come out of the character, and is somewhat hypocritical given everything that preceded in the film. The Batman I know would have tried to save Ra's al Ghul. Thankfully THE DARK KNIGHT proceeded as if that moment never happened.

[Mike00spy]

That's part of the problem. TDK is a very serious film that tried to make everything "realistic."

Spoiler

Dent's situation is better suited for the comic rather than the film. It's baffling that his blind rage would allow for the Joker to live, but to allow an innocent boy to die. Coin or not.

From a dramatic standpoint, its much better for Dent to go after Gordon's family than for the same situation to happen but with Ramirez in his grasp, or the mob boss, or the Joker. We wouldn't care if he killed them.

Same for the Joker. It makes sense for writers of the comics to make Batman not want to kill the villain; you cam make endless sequels and the more comics the better. But in the movies, we did have the orginal Joker die. We did have Liam Neeson die. (It's not like he lamented his death and vowed on camera to never kill again) It is obvious that sparing the Joker is set up for the sequel.

Bringing everything full circle, just why would Batman find a self-defense killing of the Joker horrible?

I understand the comic book origins for everything. They just don't exactly mesh with this film.

Edited by Mike00spy, 20 July 2008 - 04:43 AM.

[Harmsway]

Spoiler

Dent's situation is better suited for the comic rather than the film. It's baffling that his blind rage would allow for the Joker to live, but to allow an innocent boy to die. Coin or not.

He's psychotic. His perception of reality is now centered entirely on the randomness of justice, etc. and so on. Which is why he depends on the coin. It's not baffling. It makes sense given everything else about the character. And it was clear that he was furious about it.

Why do you think Dent went after Maroni's driver? He was trying at another chance to get Maroni by working his way around the judgment of the coin. And for all we know, Maroni is dead.

Spoiler

But in the movies, we did have the orginal Joker die.

That was an epic mistake.

Spoiler

Bringing everything full circle, just why would Batman find a self-defense killing of the Joker horrible?

Were you not paying attention to their various encounters and exchanges throughout the film? The Joker wanted Batman to kill him. That's why it was so distasteful. The Joker wanted him to break his "one rule" to show him the pointlessness of his morals and belief in order. It would be the Joker's ultimate victory over who Batman is. And that's why Batman can't do it.

[Mister E]

That was an epic mistake.

Yes it was.

Were you not paying attention to their various encounters and exchanges throughout the film? The Joker wanted Batman to kill him. That's why it was so distasteful. The Joker wanted him to break his "one rule" to show him the pointlessness of his morals and belief in order. It would be the ultimate Joker victory over who Batman is. And that's why Batman can't do it.

Well said. By the way....

Spoiler

I think, just like the last film, the final big action sequence pays homage to BATMAN '89. The Joker almost died the same way and the huge spotlight was on the building they were fighting on top of.

Edited by Mister E, 20 July 2008 - 05:00 AM.

[Mike00spy]

Let's look at the very question we have been arguing over in respect to the Joker. The big picture. I just don't find that killing the Joker (in self defense, mind you) to stop this evil person from killing others to be all that big of a moral question at all.

However, we can agree to disagree on everything

Edited by Mike00spy, 20 July 2008 - 05:01 AM.

[Mister E]

Let's look at the very question we have been arguing over in respect to the Joker. The big picture. I just don't find that killing the Joker (in self defense, mind you) to stop this evil person from killing others to be all that big of a moral question at all.

Then you mister understand Batman in general. He doesn't kill ANYONE because he feels that taking a life is wrong, he would be no better then the criminals he fights.

[Harmsway]

Let's look at the very question we have been arguing over in respect to the Joker. The big picture. I just don't find that killing the Joker (in self defense, mind you) to stop this evil person from killing others to be all that big of a moral question at all.

It's especially important for Batman, given the role he's trying to play in society. He's a symbol, and he's trying to restore law and order to Gotham. Not taking a life is the one thing that keeps him on the side of the law. I think Batman would be happy to see the Joker get the death penalty. But he wants to see him get it through legal means. Not through vigilante justice.

[tdalton]

Batman Forever is better than Batman Begins, that is what your saying.



Putting Begins & Batman & Robin in the same sentence you should be ashamed.

BATMAN FOREVER is, to me, a more entertaining film than BATMAN BEGINS. I don't like origin films, which is one of the major problems that BATMAN BEGINS has going against it. I'm also not much of a fan of the portrayal of Batman/Bruce Wayne in the film either, regardless of how faithful to whatever source material they were drawing from for this franchise. There's also that BATMAN FOREVER was the first Batman film that I saw in theaters, which gives it a boost in the same way that GOLDENEYE gets a boost for many for being the first Bond film that they saw in theaters (which was also true for me as well).

I don't, however, understand why I should be ashamed for not liking BATMAN BEGINS. Different people like different films. I don't like BATMAN BEGINS, but many on this site do (and I'm sure that there's many more that like it than don't), but it doesn't work for me, and I'm not ashamed to say that.

[Dell Deaton]

My grade: A solid A

Far and away better than Indy IV; on par w/ Hulk; almost as good as Iron Man (but not as fun).

[stamper]

Batman Forever is an abomination, I fail to see how this can qualify as a movie... it's just unwatchable unless your brain is turned off to lobotomy mode, it spawned a new word "schumachered". BB was a real movie.

[DamnCoffee]

The Dark Knight is at Number One on IMDb's top 250.

[Harmsway]

The Dark Knight is at Number One on IMDb's top 250.

Just continues to show how ridiculous IMDB is.

But I do love how crazy this is making some of the more vocal DARK KNIGHT detractors.

[DamnCoffee]

When I was in London yesterday I went past the IMAX theater and there was this massive Dark Knight poster going all around the bulding... it was breathtaking!

[sharpshooter]

Neeson is perfect for the role, in my opinion. His interactions with Wayne are brief, but laced with menace in the second half

Liam Neeson is one of my favourites, a very dramatic actor. His version of Ra’s al Ghul was fine.

Well said. By the way....

Spoiler

I think, just like the last film, the final big action sequence pays homage to BATMAN '89. The Joker almost died the same way and the huge spotlight was on the building they were fighting on top of.

Spoiler

I liked that too. What I also liked was when Joker crawls out of the truck, he stands in the middle of the street, screaming ‘hit me!’ taunting Batman to run him down. What happens next is a classic Joker moment; Joker refuses to move, Batman stands down adhering to his no killing policy, and swerves out of the way. In doing so, he falls off the bike and is rendered unconscious. Joker essentially ‘wins’ without doing a thing, and moves over to take care of Batman – before being arrested by Gordon. This is much better than the similar Batman (1989) moment, where Batman swoops down in the Batwing and opens fire on Joker, only to be shot down. There, he looks incompetent with his missile aim (that or his equipment is faulty )and a killer – neither which he is. He could be trying to intimidate the Joker, but I don't see him taking that risk.

You clearly don't understand the character. Two-Face is bound to the judgment of the coin. The coin decided, and that's that, whether he likes the results or not.

Indeed. The scene in Batman Forever with Two Face re flipping his coin for the scarred side is downright insulting to the character. Tommy Lee Jones' intepretation itself was insulting to the character. He was playing The Joker, not Two Face.

[dodge]

Wednesday--when I'll see the film--can't come fast enough for me. And I'll bring my industrial-strength ear 'muffs' and sleep mask to avoid the Quantum trailer.

[sharpshooter]

http://www.theage.co...80719-3hyj.html

No, this Batman is not for kids. A child would not appreciate TDK anyway. People will sit up and take notice now. The series has not strayed from the comic path, it is now closer than ever. It is a great time to be a Batman fan.

[DamnCoffee]

http://www.theage.co...80719-3hyj.html

No, this Batman is not for kids. People will sit up and take notice now. The series has not strayed from the comic path, it is now closer than ever. It is a great time to be a Batman fan.

I completely agree Sharpshooter. I love how the movies are becoming more darker, you're right... Batman is not for kids. Hopefully the parents will sit up and take notice. I really dont think why kids would want to go and see it anyway... they couldnt sit through 2hrs 30 mins, they'd get bored and wouldnt understand the complex plots. Plus there is alot of Violence, so I hear.

[sharpshooter]

Indeed. I don't think there will be pandering to minority groups again, like was the case after Returns, which followed up with Forever and the dreadful Batman and Robin. Stuff the lot of them, give to the fans what is long overdue and true to the character.

[Arbogast777]

New 3 day record - $155.34 million

[Harmsway]

I think it's good that we have some adult blockbuster entertainment. I think Batman is now at the place where he should be.

But that said, I don't think it's a great thing if all entertainment pushes in this direction. There is such a thing as great children's entertainment and it's valuable. As valuable as the greatest piece of "adult" art, it not considerably more so. Children need great, powerful stories, and they need them more than we adults do. It's a shame that they so rarely get them.

[DamnCoffee]

Why have I got the feeling that this may pass the $1 Billion mark?

[baerrtt]

To those posters discussing at the top of the thread Batman letting the Joker live there's also the fact that he's a vigilante first and foremost and killing the Joker anyone would immediatley bring him into conflict with the police. They may let him operate (which the comics have shown to be not without it's ironic difficulties) but there's no way in hell that Gordon has ever (outside Burton's films which made about as much sense as M, off screen,eagerly wanting Bond for a job after he's gone rogue in LTK) allowed him to go that far under his watch.

[tdalton]

I don't understand (and perhaps someone can clear this up for me) the entire discussion about Batman's "one rule". The one thing that really irritates me about BATMAN BEGINS (and, from the clips of THE DARK KNIGHT that I've seen, that film as well) is that Batman often goes out of his way to put ordinary people in danger. In BEGINS when he's escaping with Rachel, he runs over a squad car with his tank, completely crushing it, and if there was not a follow up shot of the two officers inside radioing for backup, then I would have just assumed that nobody made it out of that car. Then, later, he's dropping explosives out of the tank for the police to run over, sending their cars flying through the air, another situation in which his "one rule" could easily have been broken.

[Single-O-Seven]

I don't understand (and perhaps someone can clear this up for me) the entire discussion about Batman's "one rule". The one thing that really irritates me about BATMAN BEGINS (and, from the clips of THE DARK KNIGHT that I've seen, that film as well) is that Batman often goes out of his way to put ordinary people in danger. In BEGINS when he's escaping with Rachel, he runs over a squad car with his tank, completely crushing it, and if there was not a follow up shot of the two officers inside radioing for backup, then I would have just assumed that nobody made it out of that car. Then, later, he's dropping explosives out of the tank for the police to run over, sending their cars flying through the air, another situation in which his "one rule" could easily have been broken.

Yes, I would, for the most part, agree here. It's true that Wayne later says he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, but that's like driving home drunk because you didn't have cash to pay for a cab. It's needlessly reckless. I know Batman was in a hurry, but nearly killing a bunch of cops to save Rachel kind of goes against his crime frighting mores. After all, he's supposed to be on the same side as the police.

[Harmsway]

It's hypocritical. It's not a big deal for me, but yes, it's hypocritical (moreso in BEGINS than in THE DARK KNIGHT, though). Not quite as hypocritical as the whole "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you" moment, though. That one's a head scratcher.