2081 replies to this topic

[Johnboy007]

Anyone who loves the Burton films and think they are their ideal Batman should stay away this is a dark intelligent movie well plotted and brilliantly executed, not meandering directionless and lacklustre.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm as big a Burton/Keaton Batman fan there is, and I loved TDK. It's the film version of Battlestar Galactica (or, more appropriately, James Bond) in that respect. There's no reason on can't love and respect both the lighter, campier as well as the darker, more serious incarnations.

[bond 16.05.72]

Anyone who loves the Burton films and think they are their ideal Batman should stay away this is a dark intelligent movie well plotted and brilliantly executed, not meandering directionless and lacklustre.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm as big a Burton/Keaton Batman fan there is, and I loved TDK. It's the film version of Battlestar Galactica (or, more appropriately, James Bond) in that respect. There's no reason on can't love and respect both the lighter, campier as well as the darker, more serious incarnations.

Fair enough if you can but Nolan's universe so more interesting and those films have not aged well. I'm not saying you can't enjoy Burton's films, the other 2 stains which followed them aren't even worth mentioning because they are so awful and Batman & camp are 2 words I'd rather not ever see together again.

[Eddie Burns]

Just saw it last night and....

Outside Ledger, there is nothing spectacular about this film at all. Take Ledger out and you have a pretty mediocre film. Oldman, Eckhart and Ledger all outshine Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. There was more insight into their characters than Batman himself. I love the Bruce Wayne character, but Nolan doesn't give him enough screen time. Its like he's irrelevant.

The plot really got silly at times and some scenes just didn't make sense. When the Joker crashes the fundraiser and throws Gylenhall out the window, Batman then saves her, then it quickly cuts to the next scene. What happened upstairs? Did the Joker then leave peacefully? The whole Sonar thing during the Joker finale was just not well filmed. I didn't know what was going on and really didn't care. For such a long movie, the editing was poor.

Gotham City, did not look like Gotham City. Looked fairly safe, and probably consisted of a handful of criminals.

What I did like.
- Hong Kong scene
- Bale's performance as Wayne was an improvement on his BB performance.
- Butler Caine was less in-your-face-holier-than-thou-speech-making-not-so-subtle as he was in the previous film.
- Dent/Twoface...wasted in the end. I've always loved Twoface, and really loved his CGI face. But really really wasted. Eckhart stole the show after Ledger.
- Commisionar Gordon...loved his promotion scene. The one character I cared for, but never really was convinced he was dead after risking his life for Dent. (Btw, that scene WAS TERRIBLE).

Overall, overhyped, but understandably so. Ledger was magnificent. Oscarworthy? No, but a traiblazing performance that definitely raised the bar. The only problem I have is that the Joker never really seemed larger than life to me, something Nicholsen managed to convey with great success.

Its a solid movie, much better than BB and I enjoyed it immensely. But Nolan is NOT a genius, the script was not excellent, the editing was poor. Compared to other Batmans...its slightly better than Keatons, but not one of the greatest movies of all time. I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

[Loomis]

Just saw it last night and....

Outside Ledger, there is nothing spectacular about this film at all. Take Ledger out and you have a pretty mediocre film. Oldman, Eckhart and Ledger all outshine Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. There was more insight into their characters than Batman himself. I love the Bruce Wayne character, but Nolan doesn't give him enough screen time. Its like he's irrelevant.

The plot really got silly at times and some scenes just didn't make sense. When the Joker crashes the fundraiser and throws Gylenhall out the window, Batman then saves her, then it quickly cuts to the next scene. What happened upstairs? Did the Joker then leave peacefully? The whole Sonar thing during the Joker finale was just not well filmed. I didn't know what was going on and really didn't care. For such a long movie, the editing was poor.

Gotham City, did not look like Gotham City. Looked fairly safe, and probably consisted of a handful of criminals.

What I did like.
- Hong Kong scene
- Bale's performance as Wayne was an improvement on his BB performance.
- Butler Caine was less in-your-face-holier-than-thou-speech-making-not-so-subtle as he was in the previous film.
- Dent/Twoface...wasted in the end. I've always loved Twoface, and really loved his CGI face. But really really wasted. Eckhart stole the show after Ledger.
- Commisionar Gordon...loved his promotion scene. The one character I cared for, but never really was convinced he was dead after risking his life for Dent. (Btw, that scene WAS TERRIBLE).

Overall, overhyped, but understandably so. Ledger was magnificent. Oscarworthy? No, but a traiblazing performance that definitely raised the bar. The only problem I have is that the Joker never really seemed larger than life to me, something Nicholsen managed to convey with great success.

Its a solid movie, much better than BB and I enjoyed it immensely. But Nolan is NOT a genius, the script was not excellent, the editing was poor. Compared to other Batmans...its slightly better than Keatons, but not one of the greatest movies of all time. I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Agreed with most of that.

[Harmsway]

I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Given the lightheartedness and fun of IRON MAN being a key role in its success, I highly doubt we'll see IRON MAN II get really dark all of a sudden, as it would require to do the "demon in a bottle" storyline justice. It'll probably get written in as a subplot with a few jokey moments, but I can't imagine the studio allowing much more.

Anyway, I found IRON MAN tremendously overrated, despite being very enjoyable.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The History channel is running a show about Batman in 20 minutes...Batman unmasked:psychology and Batman tech. Enjoy!

[Qwerty]

Looks like some are betting this could surpass Titanic as the #1 box-office film of all time: http://www.deadlineh...-x-files-bombs/

[Tarl_Cabot]

I doubt that.

[JimmyBond]

I doubt that.

Never say Never...again?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I doubt that.

Never say Never...again?

A simple wink to the camera as you embrace Kim Basinger will do.

[sharpshooter]

Looks like some are betting this could surpass Titanic as the #1 box-office film of all time: http://www.deadlineh...-x-files-bombs/

Good lord. I never even entertained this idea. This box office is a power house that doesn't look like stopping.

[Loomis]

I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Given the lightheartedness and fun of IRON MAN being a key role in its success, I highly doubt we'll see IRON MAN II get really dark all of a sudden, as it would require to do the "demon in a bottle" storyline justice. It'll probably get written in as a subplot with a few jokey moments, but I can't imagine the studio allowing much more.

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I'm getting the impression that British critics are being more sceptical about TDK than their American counterparts (the CASINO ROYALE situation in reverse?):

The film's oppressive solemnity has been received by some critics as a mark of complex cerebral substance, but I can't buy that. All the cogitation on good and evil, chaos and order, civilisation and barbarism, is so earnest and laborious – not just made heavy weather of, but garlanded with looming storm clouds. ... For goodness' sake, no one expected a return to Adam West and bad puns, but this cocktail of ultraviolence, artillery and pessimism makes for a gruelling, even depressing experience. Perhaps Warner Bros could offer the next episode to Werner Herzog, just to cheer things up a bit.

http://www.independe...12a-878023.html

[Tarl_Cabot]

I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Given the lightheartedness and fun of IRON MAN being a key role in its success, I highly doubt we'll see IRON MAN II get really dark all of a sudden, as it would require to do the "demon in a bottle" storyline justice. It'll probably get written in as a subplot with a few jokey moments, but I can't imagine the studio allowing much more.

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I'm getting the impression that British critics are being more sceptical about TDK than their American counterparts (the CASINO ROYALE situation in reverse?):

Perhaps Warner Bros could offer the next episode to Werner Herzog, just to cheer things up a bit.

http://www.independe...12a-878023.html

Nice. You redcoats are a tough crowd!

[sharpshooter]

Here's some more stills.

Attached Files

•  1216946998.jpg   138.89KB   23 downloads
•  1216947119.jpg   40.19KB   22 downloads
•  1217040815.jpg   99.49KB   17 downloads
•  1217040854.jpg   130.94KB   15 downloads
•  1217040889.jpg   186.65KB   13 downloads

[DamnCoffee]

Nice! Thanks for these Sharpshooter. I love the one with Ledger without makeup... now I can see the scars clearly.

[Double-Oh Agent]

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I doubt many superhero franchises will get really dark or want to. It's not really in their superheroes' comic book genes to be that way for the most part--not like it's ingrained into Batman's mythos. Some franchises may trend toward a little darker than before because of The Dark Knight, but they will not go really dark. Most, if they tried, would not be more successful than they already are.

Of the major superheroes, Batman is in a league of his own when it comes to dark stories/characters. Virtually all his enemies suffered some sort of freak accident or had something terrible happen to them to twist and warp them into their evilness and ways of looking upon the world. Compare that to other comic book villains who (for the most part) either get one or more superpowers, get a mania for their new-found power, and start acting evil or want to exact revenge on the superhero for ruining their plans. Meanwhile, Batman's Joker is perhaps the most twisted, evil character in comics, certainly the greatest villain. No other superhero has a nemesis like him, a nemesis who seeks only to cause anarchy and pain rather than obtain power or money, so it would be virtually impossible to replicate a similar-type dark villain from the other franchises. Besides, who wants to see a rash of dark superhero stories all the time? It fits with Batman but not with say Captain America or the Flash.

[Vauxhall]

Looks like some are betting this could surpass Titanic as the #1 box-office film of all time: http://www.deadlineh...-x-files-bombs/

Interesting. I considered this idea a while ago, but didn't post anything for fear of being shot down massively!

[Harmsway]

I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Given the lightheartedness and fun of IRON MAN being a key role in its success, I highly doubt we'll see IRON MAN II get really dark all of a sudden, as it would require to do the "demon in a bottle" storyline justice. It'll probably get written in as a subplot with a few jokey moments, but I can't imagine the studio allowing much more.

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I'm not sure. There have been a lot of other recent movies that have tried things that didn't go over well with the audience. PRINCE CASPIAN, for example, went darker and that backfired. The studio knows that the #1 reason IRON MAN made any money was that it was lighthearted and hilarious. I can't see them risking that in a sequel, even if THE DARK KNIGHT was super dark. After all, it was really just more of the same - it was already following a rather brooding first film to begin with.

I'm getting the impression that British critics are being more sceptical about TDK than their American counterparts (the CASINO ROYALE situation in reverse?):

The film's oppressive solemnity has been received by some critics as a mark of complex cerebral substance, but I can't buy that. All the cogitation on good and evil, chaos and order, civilisation and barbarism, is so earnest and laborious – not just made heavy weather of, but garlanded with looming storm clouds. ... For goodness' sake, no one expected a return to Adam West and bad puns, but this cocktail of ultraviolence, artillery and pessimism makes for a gruelling, even depressing experience. Perhaps Warner Bros could offer the next episode to Werner Herzog, just to cheer things up a bit.

http://www.independe...12a-878023.html

All these complaints about THE DARK KNIGHT being too dour strike me as rather silly. I can't even begin to imagine how these folks felt about SWEENEY TODD.

[Loomis]

Well, it's a strange old film, THE DARK KNIGHT. I can't think of anything else that's so riddled with flaws yet also so stuffed to the gills with good stuff - a monstrous blend of the flimsy and the phenomenal. It's like MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II as directed by Kubrick.

[baerrtt]

I expect the Ironman franchise (if the stories go in the projected direction) will prove to be better, not financially (or maybe), but at handling the demons that affect the main character

Given the lightheartedness and fun of IRON MAN being a key role in its success, I highly doubt we'll see IRON MAN II get really dark all of a sudden, as it would require to do the "demon in a bottle" storyline justice. It'll probably get written in as a subplot with a few jokey moments, but I can't imagine the studio allowing much more.

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I'm not sure. There have been a lot of other recent movies that have tried things that didn't go over well with the audience. PRINCE CASPIAN, for example, went darker and that backfired. The studio knows that the #1 reason IRON MAN made any money was that it was lighthearted and hilarious. I can't see them risking that in a sequel, even if THE DARK KNIGHT was super dark. After all, it was really just more of the same - it was already following a rather brooding first film to begin with.

I'm getting the impression that British critics are being more sceptical about TDK than their American counterparts (the CASINO ROYALE situation in reverse?):

The film's oppressive solemnity has been received by some critics as a mark of complex cerebral substance, but I can't buy that. All the cogitation on good and evil, chaos and order, civilisation and barbarism, is so earnest and laborious – not just made heavy weather of, but garlanded with looming storm clouds. ... For goodness' sake, no one expected a return to Adam West and bad puns, but this cocktail of ultraviolence, artillery and pessimism makes for a gruelling, even depressing experience. Perhaps Warner Bros could offer the next episode to Werner Herzog, just to cheer things up a bit.

http://www.independe...12a-878023.html

All these complaints about THE DARK KNIGHT being too dour strike me as rather silly. I can't even begin to imagine how these folks felt about SWEENEY TODD.

I think the film is terrific but how many summer blockbusters (since JAWS created/defined the season) aimed at a wider (family) audience (by virtue of it's rating and lead character) have trudged this close to dark and intense? Not THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (regardless of the comparisons), INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM or BATMAN RETURNS (using past examples of family oriented blockbusters that raised parental eyebrows). The movie comes across as a horror film as much as a Michael Mann-esque crime drama and for many who think that summer blockbusters be mindless and conventionally 'fun' tonally (rather than films that genuinely attempt to be more that)they see it as an abberation.


This isn't necessarily new as critics (on both sides of the Atlantic I recall) criticised GLADIATOR on the count that it took itself too seriously for the 'silly' season.

But surely the tremendous box office success of THE DARK KNIGHT will embolden the makers of IRON MAN 2 (and other superhero franchise flicks) to get really dark. If they want to, that is.

I doubt many superhero franchises will get really dark or want to. It's not really in their superheroes' comic book genes to be that way for the most part--not like it's ingrained into Batman's mythos. Some franchises may trend toward a little darker than before because of The Dark Knight, but they will not go really dark. Most, if they tried, would not be more successful than they already are.

Of the major superheroes, Batman is in a league of his own when it comes to dark stories/characters. Virtually all his enemies suffered some sort of freak accident or had something terrible happen to them to twist and warp them into their evilness and ways of looking upon the world. Compare that to other comic book villains who (for the most part) either get one or more superpowers, get a mania for their new-found power, and start acting evil or want to exact revenge on the superhero for ruining their plans. Meanwhile, Batman's Joker is perhaps the most twisted, evil character in comics, certainly the greatest villain. No other superhero has a nemesis like him, a nemesis who seeks only to cause anarchy and pain rather than obtain power or money, so it would be virtually impossible to replicate a similar-type dark villain from the other franchises. Besides, who wants to see a rash of dark superhero stories all the time? It fits with Batman but not with say Captain America or the Flash.

Most comic book fanboys think that their favourite characters (whomever they be) could benefit from a dark film rated R. What they don't understand is that you couldn't make a Spider Man film (for all those who whined that Raimi's vision was too kiddie oriented, oh yes) quite like THE DARK KNIGHT no matter how many IMO not very good comic book stories where the character has been made to fit(unsuccessfully) darker storylines they trudge up.

I enjoyed TDK but I unfortunately suspect that it's success will convince the fanboys (and the studios) that every single character adapted can fit a darker story whether that's true or not.

Edited by baerrtt, 27 July 2008 - 02:04 PM.

[Harmsway]

Well, I do think THE DARK KNIGHT has changed the face of the superhero genre, and 2009's WATCHMEN should also bring something of a shock to the system, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a push towards more dramatic stories.

But I still can't see studios letting go of their basic understanding of demographics and just go dark across the board. Maybe they will. If they do, I guarantee it won't last too long, because the results won't be what they want.

[jaguar007]

While some may consider "the dark atmosphere" of the movie to be the key to TDK success lets consider one other key to its success - Heath Ledger. I seriously doubt that Batman 3 will do the kind of numbers TDK is doing.

[sharpshooter]

Aaron Eckhart would reprise his role from The Dark Knight - because working with Christian Bale is "phenomenal". Eckhart, who played District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film. He told WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."

http://www.cinemable...-Dent-9618.html

[DR76]

I had posted a review of the movie on my blog - "THE DARK KNIGHT" Review

[dodge]

McPaper, today's issue, claims my once-rad prediction of $400 mil domestic will be reached in 18 days. I'm gambling here, but I think it may be closer to 10 days.

Per WB's Dan Fellman: "...I don't know how far beyond that we can go, but certainly $500 million seems within reach."

Anybody think so?

[dodge]

Glad you liked it, dodge.

An original spin would have done simply fine and it wouldn't have had to be brilliant, just fresh: something to the effect "We're heads and tails, yin and yang."

I don't know that that's any fresher, really. It borders on being a heavy-handed way of delivering something that's already pretty explicit.

I agree. the best I could do, working for free here! Come to think of it, I don't believe the line was needed at all. One of the film's best lines, "Do I look like I have a plan?", did the job just nicely. There's the difference, short and fresh, between The Joker and Batman.

[Loomis]

Why does Two-Face flip a coin to decide who lives and who dies? Why doesn't he just, erm, make his own decision? What if the coin gives a verdict he doesn't agree with? What does this tell us about the character?

[dodge]

Why does Two-Face flip a coin to decide who lives and who dies? Why doesn't he just, erm, make his own decision? What if the coin gives a verdict he doesn't agree with? What does this tell us about the character?

Aha, thank you! I'd forgotten about this--and how this part bugged me. I know, I know, here come the "You must be joking, right?" posts...but does anyone remember the villain in No Country for Old Men doing the precise same thing? I wonder if Aaron Eckhart imitated Javier Barden's workout routine... Coincidence? If you like. But it bugged me the same way if I read the same words or scene in one book that I'd just read in another.

[Harmsway]

Why does Two-Face flip a coin to decide who lives and who dies? Why doesn't he just, erm, make his own decision?

Well, it's a philosophical point, I think. In the comics, there are different explanations (he's sometimes been portrayed as having split personalities, one good, one evil, and flipping to decide between the two). In the movie, it's abot his lack of face in any real justice beyond arbitrary chance. It's an admission that human beings are helpless to things beyond their control, and that any attempt to administer justice is either successful or not because of chance, nothing more.

What if the coin gives a verdict he doesn't agree with?

Well, he stands by it. Sometimes he can get a loophole, though (see the Maroni car scene).

[Loomis]

Well, apart from the echo of NO COUNTRY, it just seems a cop-out. It looks as though Two-Face doesn't have his own convictions and the courage to stand by them - he's merely a slave to the coin. How, then, is this an interesting character?

(What if the coin never called for a single death? Or mandated a massacre? Where would that leave the film? Where would it leave the Facemeister?)

Now, I'm guessing this is also in the comics and not the invention of Nolan and co. - but it still don't make it right.