2081 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

Just came back from my second viewing at a much better theater and I must say that I have absolutely no issues at all with TDK. It has everything that I personally would want in a movie ( a little action, a little drama, a little humor, and a little horror). The cinematography (especially in Hong Kong) is spectacular. I enjoy the films twists and turns immensely.

A perfect movie when it comes to my own personal tastes, I couldn't be more satisfied.

This was also the first time I saw the QoS trailer on the big screen. Something appeared to be off with the picture, it looked like the top and bottom was cut slightly and that the music overpowered all else. Still, it was a pretty cool sight.

[Mister E]

But I'm convinced no Burton Batfilm would ever have been up to snuff. The man just can't create a coherent, solid narrative. It seems to be entirely beyond his ability to do so. Both his Batfilms, B89 and BR, suffer from incredibly weak stories that are a mess of unfollowed avenues and random ideas. I'm glad he left.

I am glad he left too but I don't think he deserves such harsh criticism. He could make a great story but he really chooses not to. He prefers spectacle and does a good job in that era. The only thing I hated was that he really gave Batman/Bruce Wayne no character development and even worse, he let Batman casually murder in BATMAN RETURNS.

[Harmsway]

He could make a great story but he really chooses not to.

He's only had one film with a really strong, coherent narrative, and that was SWEENEY TODD, and that wasn't even his story.

[Mister E]

He's only had one film with a really strong, coherent narrative, and that was SWEENEY TODD, and that wasn't even his story.

I know, that's why I said he could but he chooses not. In general, Burton, and some artists, have a alot of talent but they choose not apply themselves were in counts when they are perfectly capable of doing so.

[Harmsway]

He's only had one film with a really strong, coherent narrative, and that was SWEENEY TODD, and that wasn't even his story.

I know, that's why I said he could but he chooses not.

I don't know. I'm not sure he has it in him. I don't think Burton is able to recognize what a really coherent story is. I think SWEENEY TODD is really something of a happy accident.

[sharpshooter]

The latest instalment in the revived Batman franchise scored Warner Brothers the best weekend opening by a film, giving the studio a significant boost and generating $155.3m (£77.7m, €97.98m) in its first two days of release in the US.

The Dark Knight broke the previous record of $151m, which was set last summer by Sony’s Spider-Man 3 and dominated the weekend, outperforming Universal’s Mamma Mia, which generated $27.6m.

http://www.ft.com/cm...0077b07658.html

But remember, "It's not about the money...It's about sending a message."

[Qwerty]

"...It's about sending a message."

I think this film has definitely accomplished that if the overwhelming critical and fan praise is anything to go by.

[Skudor]

Oh, now this is just getting ridiculous. THE DARK KNIGHT is already at number four on the IMDb's 250 top movies list!!!!!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/...t/top?tt0468569

Here's the top ten:

1. 9.1 The Godfather (1972)
2. 9.1 The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. 9.0 The Dark Knight (2008)
5. 8.9 Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
6. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994)
7. 8.8 Schindler's List (1993)
8. 8.8 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
9. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
10. 8.8 Casablanca (1942)

Right then, I may be ignorant but I'm not stupid, so.... what's the catch? Should we all just surrender to THE DARK KNIGHT right away? I mean, is it the greatest thing since sliced bread? Is resistance futile?

Relax. Big movies tend to move up this list pretty quickly and slowly settle in as more ratings pour in. It was the same with the Star Wars prequels - none of which are in the top ten now.

[HildebrandRarity]

Perhaps i'm a bit slow, but I have one question:

Does The Joker lie to Batman when revealing the locations of Dent and Rachel by reversing the info...or does Batman lie to/misdirect Gordon when he tells him the address for "Dent"...or was something else said that I missed?

It's obviously one helluva twist and i've only seen the movie once and things were happening really quickly at that point.

Very good movie, obviously, but if anyone can shed light on the above question...

[sharpshooter]

Does The Joker lie to Batman when revealing the locations of Dent and Rachel by reversing the info...

Spoiler

Yes. The Joker fooled Batman. The Joker wanted Batman to save whoever Batman wanted to save less, and he wanted whoever Batman wanted to save to die. It was also all apart of Joker's plan of bringing Dent to insanity, to become 'one of us'. So, The Joker didn't really give in to Batman in the interrogation room. He probably would have loved to be beaten up a little longer. But, the plan had to progress.

[Mister Asterix]

Very, very good movie. Not great; nearly though. The action scenes just didn’t boil my adrenaline like the better Bond films. That and Ledger’s Joker — while really good — wasn’t jokey enough and was too much ‘Saw’. Small complaints though. Also while this Batman does not live in the world of ‘my’ Batman — like Downing’s Iron Man lived in the world of ‘my’ Iron Man — Bale’s Wayne/Batman does play ‘my’ Batman in this film. That’s a first for any of the Batman films.

[HildebrandRarity]

Very, very good movie. Not great; nearly though. The action scenes just didn’t boil my adrenaline like the better Bond films.

I would agree. I think The Dark Knight has its flaws (which are numerous*) and, for my money, I would rank it solidly behind Casino Royale in terms of the top action/adventure movies of the 2000s.

The performances of Bale, Eckhart and Ledger, however, were quite sublime.

It's quite hartening to see that the humble nobility with which Nolan and Bale and Batman Begins re-ignited the franchise has continued into The Dark Knight.

One would hope that the huge financial success of this movie will not translate into Warners going wild and signing 'name' actors that don't necessarily 'fit' the characters or just for the sake of it...like they did in the 90s...to the detriment of quality and, ultimately, the series.

Does The Joker lie to Batman when ...

Spoiler

Yes. The Joker fooled Batman. The Joker wanted Batman to save whoever Batman wanted to save less, and he wanted whoever Batman wanted to save to die. It was also all apart of Joker's plan of bringing Dent to insanity, to become 'one of us'. So, The Joker didn't really give in to Batman in the interrogation room. He probably would have loved to be beaten up a little longer. But, the plan had to progress.

Perfect and thanks!



* The flaws show up right off the bat in the first scene where the blown out skyscraper window attracts zero attention from anyone - in broad daylight! Funny that 'cause there's a large bank with a lot of money in it in the building on the other side of the road! Details, details!

[Harmsway]

I actually think THE DARK KNIGHT is significantly superior to CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE is excellent, mind you, but I think the character work, performances, direction, and action are all superior in THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Arbogast777]

* The flaws show up right off the bat in the first scene where the blown out skyscraper window attracts zero attention from anyone - in broad daylight! Funny that 'cause there's a large bank with a lot of money in it in the building on the other side of the road! Details, details!

Two things from that sequence caught my eye as being kind of sloppy errors

1) That first shot from behind The Joker, standing on the street corner, holding the clown mask. You *think* somebody might have noticed a guy with his looks (he was revealed to be in full makeup remember) standing on a busy street corner.

2) When The Joker drives off in the school bus with the string attached to the pin in the grenade - the pin pulls out but just falls to the ground - when it should have kept going with the bus.

[Harmsway]

* The flaws show up right off the bat in the first scene where the blown out skyscraper window attracts zero attention from anyone - in broad daylight! Funny that 'cause there's a large bank with a lot of money in it in the building on the other side of the road! Details, details!

Two things from that sequence caught my eye as being kind of sloppy errors

1) That first shot from behind The Joker, standing on the street corner, holding the clown mask. You *think* somebody might have noticed a guy with his looks (he was revealed to be in full makeup remember) standing on a busy street corner.

I think this one, as well as the glass window moment, are actually intentional on Nolan's part, much like Spielberg often knowingly creates continuity errors in order to achieve a specific effect.

[Mister Asterix]

2) When The Joker drives off in the school bus with the string attached to the pin in the grenade - the pin pulls out but just falls to the ground - when it should have kept going with the bus.

The string broke. Okay, maybe it didn’t, but it might or could have so it’s not important enough to dwell over.

[Judo chop]

I actually think THE DARK KNIGHT is significantly superior to CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE is excellent, mind you, but I think the character work, performances, direction, and action are all superior in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Good, I say. Nothing wrong with a little healthy creative competition. I'll raise my glass in a toast to the recent success of both franchises, and a wish that each uses the others’ as a challenge to push their respective envelopes of depth and excitement.

[Andrew]

I actually think THE DARK KNIGHT is significantly superior to CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE is excellent, mind you, but I think the character work, performances, direction, and action are all superior in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I agree, but then again I also thought that BEGINS was slightly superior to CASINO ROYALE.

I'm just glad that my two favorite franchises are in a great place right now.

[The Dove]

Like comparing apples to oranges, no way I can compare Batman to Bond..

So having so more time to fully digest The Dark Knight, I can still say it's a brilliant film and I still stick by my 5-star rating.. However, I still prefer Batman Begins to The Dark Knight... though both films are now my all time favorites in the series!! HAH!! and to think I used to feel that Batman Forever was the best film!! Joel Schumacher, you have been put to shame!! Sorry Tim Burton, you now take the silver medal in the Batman movie olympics!!

So my new ranking from best to worst for the Batman movies:

1. Batman Begins
2. The Dark Knight
3. Batman (1989)
4. Batman Forever
5. Batman Returns
6. Batman and Robin

[Harmsway]

I actually think THE DARK KNIGHT is significantly superior to CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE is excellent, mind you, but I think the character work, performances, direction, and action are all superior in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I agree, but then again I also thought that BEGINS was slightly superior to CASINO ROYALE.

I thought CASINO ROYALE was significantly superior to BEGINS in most respects, but I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was significantly superior to both of 'em.

I'm just glad that my two favorite franchises are in a great place right now.

The best place either franchise has ever been, if you ask me.

[HildebrandRarity]

There's NO WAY The Dark Knight is superior to Casino Royale. Casino Royale does not cheat the viewer whereas, as a pure motion picture, The Dark Knight puposely avoids setting its CGI in daylight. It's done to avoid criticism. You're left wanting in the scenes at night, esp the bat-cycle scenes. The viewer is cheated...even if it's a little. Casino Royale does not do this.

And then there are a lot of flaws in The Dark Knight. Only someone so biased would state something to the effect that "Nolan intentionally created or left in those flaws"! LAUGHABLE.

It's easy to go over the top and sell out with a performance when you have two (three at the end) main characters who are behind gobs of make-up or a face mask and cowel.

Nothing Ledger or Eckhart or Bale does matches the performace given by Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale.

There's no one wearing a cape or face make up in Casino Royale so it's very hard to compare the two movies. How many BAFTA nominations did CR get?

When the hype surrounding The Dark Knight - much of it fueled by poor Heath Ledger's fatal accidental overdose - dies, we'll be able to judge with clearer minds.

Right now general audiences are blinded by hype and are caught up a very good posthumus entry by Ledger.

Let's give it two years and then compare...that's IF such comparisons are even possible given painted and masked faces v the naked faces of Casino Royale.

[Mister Asterix]

There's NO WAY The Dark Knight is superior to Casino Royale. Casino Royale does not cheat the viewer whereas, as a pure motion picture, The Dark Knight puposely avoids setting its CGI in daylight. It's done to avoid criticism. You're left wanting in the scenes at night, esp the bat-cycle scenes. The viewer is cheated...even if it's a little. Casino Royale does not do this.

It was quite clever of them to go back all those year and create Batman as being a creature of the night just so they could cover up flaws in the then non-existant CGI.

[Harmsway]

Casino Royale does not cheat the viewer whereas, as a pure motion picture, The Dark Knight puposely avoids setting its CGI in daylight. It's done to avoid criticism. You're left wanting in the scenes at night, esp the bat-cycle scenes. The viewer is cheated...even if it's a little. Casino Royale does not do this.

Ridiculous criticism. THE DARK KNIGHT is inferior... because it's set at night and therefore most of its CGI is better obscured!? It's Batman, for crying out loud. Batman's set at night. That's his shtick.

And even if the motivation to set it at night was just to hide the CGI better (And what CGI are we speaking of exactly? There's not much of it in THE DARK KNIGHT), that's still perfectly valid... not a cheat at all. Just good filmmaking.

And then there are a lot of flaws in The Dark Knight. Only someone so biased would state something to the effect that "Nolan deliberately created those flaws"! LAUGHABLE.

Not really. They're hard things to miss. And it's common knowledge throughout the Hollywood world that directors frequently create continuity errors in order to create greater effect. Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but both continuity errors are obvious enough that I would guess Nolan was aware of what he was doing.

Nothing Ledger or Eckhart or Bale does matches the performace given by Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale.

Craig. One performance in a film (and anyway, I disagree... I think Ledger's performance is more impressive than Craig's, or at the very least, on-par). As far as other performances, the cast of THE DARK KNIGHT certainly is a more than adequate match for Green, Mikkelsen, Dench and such.

How many BAFTA nominations did CR get?

So? A film's quality is judged by nominations now? If so, then we can bring out the fact that DARK KNIGHT's pretty much a lock for Ledger's Oscar nomination, and there's buzz for considerable other categories. More than ROYALE ever managed to get.

[DR76]

I was surprised with Dent's finale. I thought Two-Face was meant to return as the primary villain of B3, but now realise finishing him off was the right thing to do. After all, his character's arc was well-completed within the TDK. To carry him on might be overkill, as there's nothing else he can really do unless they make the character suddenly more evil and involve him in a grander scheme, which would be outside what they established with the character.

I don't think that TDK was solely Harvey Dent's story. The end of BATMAN BEGINS had the inmates of Arkham being freed and hinted the emergence of the Joker. I also feel that the the third Batman movie could have solely been I think that the movie should have ended with the Joker captured and Harvey emerging as "Two-Faced Harvey". Then have Harvey as the main villain in the third. The story went longer than necessary. Even worse, it included the scenarios with the ferry boats and Batman taking responsibility for Harvey's murders in order to save the latter's reputation. To be honest, I found both of those scenarios rather ludcicrous.

I thought CASINO ROYALE was significantly superior to BEGINS in most respects, but I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was significantly superior to both of 'em.

I don't. I think that both BB and CR were, in the end, better written than TDK.

Edited by DR76, 21 July 2008 - 05:05 PM.

[[dark]]

I actually think THE DARK KNIGHT is significantly superior to CASINO ROYALE. CASINO ROYALE is excellent, mind you, but I think the character work, performances, direction, and action are all superior in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I probably need another viewing or two of The Dark Knight, but at this stage, I'm probably inclined to agree. Maybe not "significantly", but The Dark Knight is a tremendous film.

This isn't a slight on Casino Royale in any way (it remains a superb reinvention of the 007 saga), but The Dark Knight "is something else entirely" - and this is largely down to Christopher Nolan's work, including his casting of the likes of Bale, Eckhart, and of course, Ledger. The result is a film that transcends genres like never before.

I'm just glad that my two favorite franchises are in a great place right now.

The best place either franchise has ever been, if you ask me.

Absolutely. Especially amazing when you consider where each franchise was just two entries prior.

[Judo chop]

There's NO WAY The Dark Knight is superior to Casino Royale.

When the hype surrounding The Dark Knight dies, we'll be able to judge with clearer minds.

Let's give it two years and then compare.

Something about your thought process doesn't work for me, Hilde.

[HildebrandRarity]

There's NO WAY The Dark Knight is superior to Casino Royale. Casino Royale does not cheat the viewer whereas, as a pure motion picture, The Dark Knight puposely avoids setting its CGI in daylight. It's done to avoid criticism. You're left wanting in the scenes at night, esp the bat-cycle scenes. The viewer is cheated...even if it's a little. Casino Royale does not do this.

It was quite clever of them to go back all those year and create Batman as being a creature of the night just so they could cover up flaws in the then non-existant CGI.

You're quite a funny one, my old friend.

The fact is, Casino Royale does not cheat you. The Dark Knight allows for the possiblility...and tries to take advantage of it...but fails in the chase sequence. There is no clearity. It's a jumbled, shillouetted mass of shadows and, as a result, WEAKER than the action in Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

The Dark Knight allows for the possiblility...and tries to take advantage of it...but fails in the chase sequence. There is no clearity. It's a jumbled, shillouetted mass of shadows and, as a result, WEAKER than the action in Casino Royale.

I disagree. IMO, it's a gripping, intense sequence that outdoes any of the action in CASINO ROYALE, which all seems merely adequate in comparison (well, aside from the crackling Madagascar chase, that is). The action is CASINO ROYALE's weakest area.

[HildebrandRarity]

Casino Royale does not cheat the viewer whereas, as a pure motion picture, The Dark Knight puposely avoids setting its CGI in daylight. It's done to avoid criticism. You're left wanting in the scenes at night, esp the bat-cycle scenes. The viewer is cheated...even if it's a little. Casino Royale does not do this.

Ridiculous criticism. THE DARK KNIGHT is inferior... because it's set at night and therefore most of its CGI is better obscured!? It's Batman, for crying out loud. Batman's set at night. That's his shtick.

And even if the motivation to set it at night was just to hide the CGI better (And what CGI are we speaking of exactly? There's not much of it in THE DARK KNIGHT), that's still perfectly valid... not a cheat at all. Just good filmmaking.

And then there are a lot of flaws in The Dark Knight. Only someone so biased would state something to the effect that "Nolan deliberately created those flaws"! LAUGHABLE.

Not really. They're hard things to miss. And it's common knowledge throughout the Hollywood world that directors frequently create continuity errors in order to create greater effect. Of course, it's just speculation on my part, but both continuity errors are obvious enough that I would guess Nolan was aware of what he was doing.

Nothing Ledger or Eckhart or Bale does matches the performace given by Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale.

Craig. One performance in a film (and anyway, I disagree... I think Ledger's performance is more impressive than Craig's, or at the very least, on-par). As far as other performances, the cast of THE DARK KNIGHT certainly is a more than adequate match for Green, Mikkelsen, Dench and such.

How many BAFTA nominations did CR get?

So? A film's quality is judged by nominations now? If so, then we can bring out the fact that DARK KNIGHT's pretty much a lock for Ledger's Oscar nomination, and there's buzz for considerable other categories. More than ROYALE ever managed to get.

Of course Batman is a creature of the night. We all know that! Hence it was Wayne to the rescue in his Lamborghini in daylight!

It doesn't change the fact that the chase scene which uses the bat-mobile and the bat-cycle are a jumbled mass of shadows and are less impressive than, say, the night time action scene at Miami International or the night time scene of the Aston Martin avoiding Vesper in the road. The night scenes in Royale were clearer and more discernable and were easier to follow and were better viewing. That's all I was saying.

Further, everyone knows that the Oscars are politically motivated and someone in the Academy even admitted that Casino Royale was not nominated because "it's a James Bond movie...and we want to maintian some degree of artisitic credibility."

That was pure bull[censored] on their part at the Academy. It was a lost opportunity and to avoid a similar situation they'll try and avoid another similar type of 'backlash' and end up nominating a dead actor. In doing so they'll raise their sagging ratings of recent years. In fact that's exactly what some astute observers say they need to offset the decline in viewership of their Oscar shows. In a perverse sense, Ledger's unfortuante accidental overdose will become a ratings boon for the Academy which has been on its back heel in recent years.

Another thing, you really think you can compare a guy in heavy make up who's asked to act like a freak ... to the polished and nuanced performace of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale? You think you can compare an actor being asked to act like a lunatic behind a painted face to a guy asked to be physically lethal AND pull off the Vesper shower scene, the carpet-beater scene and the death of Vesper scene?

How can you possibly compare?

[[dark]]

Another thing, you really think you can compare a guy in heavy make up who's asked to act like a freak to the polished and nuanced performace of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale? You think you can compare an actor being asked to act like a lunatic behind a painted face to a guy asked to be physically lethal AND pull off the Vesper shower scene? The carpet-beater scene? The death of Vesper scene?

How can you possibly compare?

Just because Ledger was wearing heavy make-up doesn't make his performance any less polished or nuanced. As a "freak", Ledger was a revelation - in fact, if I could summarise Ledger's performance in a single word, "nuanced" would probably be it.

Out of interest, has Nolan ever expressed an interest in helming a Bond film? I know the fans toss his name around a bit, but has he ever said he might be up for it?