2081 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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.

Sure, but the character of Two-Face has been around a lot longer than Anton Chigurh, and the coin has always been part of his character. I think if anybody's stealing from anybody, NO COUNTRY is stealing from Batman.

[Harmsway]

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.

As I've said above, yeah, 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.

How, then, is this an interesting character?

Well, as I've said before, the origin story is the most interesting part. I didn't have a whole lot of interest in seeing post-origin Harvey carry a film. There's the occasional good post-origin story in the comics (especially in those where he's got split identities), but for the most part, it's his origin that makes him compelling.

(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?)

Well, the coin can't really call for things, it can only answer the questions Two-Face gives it.

[Andrew]

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.

Sure, but the character of Two-Face has been around a lot longer than Anton Chigurh, and the coin has always been part of his character. I think if anybody's stealing from anybody, NO COUNTRY is stealing from Batman.

Thank you, I was just going to post that.

I can't believe that some think that NCfOM created the idea of a coin flip determining someone's fate when that's what Two Face has been doing since the 1940's.

[Mike00spy]

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.

Well, I'd add to the point and then wait for Harmsway to jump in.

Why not just flip the coin before he goes to the person and holds a gun to his head? This way, it saves him the trouble of having to do all that work. The gimmick of the coin really becomes just an insight into what the screen writer is thinking. It is not pure chance, of course, just the illusion of it. It somehow feels cheap in the end.

Spoiler

(Now did he kill Ramierez or not? Gordon at the end mentioned as having 2 cops dead, but didn't Dent tell Ramierez that she was lucky?)

The targeting of Gordon's family (not matter how much dialogue is spouted to make it seem "logical") is just a cliched ending. Like I said before, if you substitue any one of the people that did cause Rachel's death, the scene has nowhere near the power whatsoever. However, it drives the point home of Dent becoming a vigilante much better.

That's just my own opinion of it and why it didn't work for myself. If it worked for others, than I'm happy that they are happy.

Oh, and this one is really an open question:

Spoiler

Concerning the end. Gordon tells him that the public needed an answer for the death of the cops. I found myself wondering, "I am really to believe that EVERY CRIME IN GOTHAM CITY is solved? Seems to me that an unsolved crime is the norm here. And, since there is zero evidence regardless, why not blame the Joker or the mob boss? Just why is it that Batman has to take the fall?

Edited by Mike00spy, 28 July 2008 - 08:58 PM.

[Loomis]

Why not just flip the coin before he goes to the person and holds a gun to his head? This way, it saves him the trouble of having to do all that work. The gimmick of the coin really becomes just an insight into what the screen writer is thinking. It is not pure chance, of course, just the illusion of it. It somehow feels cheap in the end.

Well, the problem I have with it is: if you're gonna be an avenger and go out on missions (as I gather Dent wishes to do under the guise of Two-Face), you don't bring a coin along to make your decisions. And you definitely don't play "best of three".

It may have been in the comics going back to 1896 or whenever, but it still feels cheap and, like quite a few other things, out of place in what is allegedly not merely a "smart" Batman flick but nothing less than the frickin' GODFATHER II of our times.

Oh, and this one is really an open question:

Spoiler

Concerning the end. Gordon tells him that the public needed an answer for the death of the cops. I found myself wondering, "I am really to believe that EVERY CRIME IN GOTHAM CITY is solved? Seems to me that an unsolved crime is the norm here. And, since there is zero evidence regardless, why not blame the Joker or the mob boss? Just why is it that Batman has to take the fall?

Good question.

And was I alone in being terribly unconvinced by the idea of a bunch of regular shlubs spending their evenings imitating Batman and going out to combat crime? Might have worked had they been convincing heroic types, but they're lardbutts who look barely capable of walking to the fridge. Presumably because the filmmakers thought this was funny.

Also, we're always being told via the film's dialogue that Gotham is going to hell in a handcart, but it looks, on the whole, like a gleaming, functional, successful city.

[Harmsway]

Why not just flip the coin before he goes to the person and holds a gun to his head?

He could. He has in the comics. It's a matter of whim. But I think he takes pleasure in making the victim watch the coin flip. After all, the coin is something of a statement.

(Now did he kill Ramierez or not? Gordon at the end mentioned as having 2 cops dead, but didn't Dent tell Ramierez that she was lucky?)

She's alive, I believe. Gordon's either under the impression she's dead due to her absence, or he's talking about someone else (and if so, I have no idea about that).

Concerning the end. Gordon tells him that the public needed an answer for the death of the cops. I found myself wondering, "I am really to believe that EVERY CRIME IN GOTHAM CITY is solved? Seems to me that an unsolved crime is the norm here.

Well, sure, not every crime in Gotham City is solved, but when you have two police officers killed, and one of them purposefully shot in a bar in the daylight, folks are going to ask questions. What happened there? And the police force is going to ask questions when their friends die without explanation, too.

And, since there is zero evidence regardless, why not blame the Joker or the mob boss?

You could do the latter, perhaps, aside from the problem that Maroni just died in a car accident after having his driver shot in the head. It's a mysterious incident. And the Joker, who's so open about his crimes, isn't taking credit, nor does it fit with anything else he's doing.

There's also the matter about the kidnapping of Gordon's family, which the whole police force knows about, and then trying to explain why Dent took a dive off a rooftop. And given that Batman was at the scene, it makes him a perfect scapegoat for all of the above.

Well, the problem I have with it is: if you're gonna be an avenger and go out on missions (as I gather Dent wishes to do under the guise of Two-Face), you don't bring a coin along to make your decisions.

Sure. That is rational. But Two-Face isn't rational. He's got a fractured mind. You can't ask a crazy man to be logical... it's, well, illogical.

And you definitely don't play "best of three".

When did he do that?

And was I alone in being terribly unconvinced by the idea of a bunch of regular shlubs spending their evenings imitating Batman and going out to combat crime?

Yes. Why couldn't they be? I think that looks like the kind of folk who *would* be inspired by Batman to go out and fight crime. I don't think the "heroic types" would be the ones in suits like that. It'd be the losers and the schmoes who are looking for some kind of fulfillment. And it's not like they're portrayed as being particularly good at what they do.

[Loomis]

And you definitely don't play "best of three".

When did he do that?

I seem to recall a bit in the film (don't ask me which bit) where he flips the coin and doesn't get the outcome he wants (i.e. "Kill!") so flips it again.

And was I alone in being terribly unconvinced by the idea of a bunch of regular shlubs spending their evenings imitating Batman and going out to combat crime?

Yes. Why couldn't they be? I think that looks like the kind of folk who *would* be inspired by Batman to go out and fight crime. I don't think the "heroic types" would be the ones in suits like that. It'd be the losers and the schmoes who are looking for some kind of fulfillment. And it's not like they're portrayed as being particularly good at what they do.

True. Good point. But it does raise another question: why does Batman think he has the right to do what he does but others don't?

[Harmsway]

I seem to recall a bit in the film (don't ask me which bit) where he flips the coin and doesn't get the outcome he wants (i.e. "Kill!") so flips it again.

That doesn't happen. You're not the only one to get confused on that point, though. He flips for Maroni, Maroni lives. So he flips for Maroni's driver, and Maroni's driver dies. He's definitely taking a loophole, but it's not a re-flip.

True. Good point. But it does raise another question: why does Batman think he has the right to do what he does but others don't?

It's a real good question.

In this specific case, he was against the Bat imitators because they were trying to kill - they're a different breed of vigilante. They're the breed of vigilante he's trying not to be. I don't know what he'd do if they'd just been people trying to help.

[Blonde Bond]

I don't know what he'd do if they'd just been people trying to help.

How Bats Met The Boy Wonder : A Vigilante Story / aka Batman 3

[DR76]

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.

But it has already happened before. "THE DARK KNIGHT" is not the first superhero movie that went dark.


All three of the SPIDER-MAN movies had a tendency to be dark . . . especially the third film. Both the second and third X-MEN movies were dark. Especially the third film. And there were movies like "DAREDEVIL", "ELEKTRA", "THE HULK" and "THE INCREDIBLE HULK", and probably the darkest comic book hero movie I have ever seen . . . "THE PUNISHER".

[Righty007]

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.

But it has already happened before. "THE DARK KNIGHT" is not the first superhero movie that went dark.


All three of the SPIDER-MAN movies had a tendency to be dark . . . especially the third film. Both the second and third X-MEN movies were dark. Especially the third film. And there were movies like "DAREDEVIL", "ELEKTRA", "THE HULK" and "THE INCREDIBLE HULK", and probably the darkest comic book hero movie I have ever seen . . . "THE PUNISHER".

Spider-Man 3 was dark? LOL!

Just because Parker had an "emo" haircut doesn't make it dark.

[Harmsway]

All three of the SPIDER-MAN movies had a tendency to be dark . . . especially the third film.

I must have been watching different movies than you were. All three were light camp-fests. The third film's equivalent of going "dark" was a SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER-esque strut down the street, followed soon thereafter by a ridiculous dance number straight out of THE MASK. Yeah. Mighty dark stuff right there.

[DR76]

Spider-Man 3 was dark? LOL!

Considering that the story featured the darker side of the hero's personality and ended in the death of a major character . . . yeah, it was dark. I'm not laughing.

I must have been watching different movies than you were. All three were light camp-fests.

I think we were looking at different movies. At least the three movies were spared the ridiculously contrived ending that nearly ruined THE DARK KNIGHT for me.

Edited by DR76, 29 July 2008 - 04:31 AM.

[Harmsway]

Considering that the story featured the darker side of the hero's personality and ended in the death of a major character . . . yeah, it was dark. I'm not laughing.

The audience when I saw it was.

At least the three movies were spared the ridiculously contrived ending that nearly ruined THE DARK KNIGHT for me.

They more than made up with it with their fair share of contrivance elsewhere.

[baerrtt]

Spider-Man 3 was dark? LOL!

Considering that the story featured the darker side of the hero's personality and ended in the death of a major character . . . yeah, it was dark. I'm not laughing.

I must have been watching different movies than you were. All three were light camp-fests.

I think we were looking at different movies. At least the three movies were spared the ridiculously contrived ending that nearly ruined THE DARK KNIGHT for me.

The Spider Man films are overbalanced with so much humour that, though they certainly deal with dark themes, unlike TDK you mostly don't buy into the 'darkness'. If you did fair enough, but IMHO there is nothing tonally in Raimi's three films as unsettling or adult as the stuff in TDK.

[Loomis]

Concerning the end. Gordon tells him that the public needed an answer for the death of the cops. I found myself wondering, "I am really to believe that EVERY CRIME IN GOTHAM CITY is solved? Seems to me that an unsolved crime is the norm here.

Well, sure, not every crime in Gotham City is solved, but when you have two police officers killed, and one of them purposefully shot in a bar in the daylight, folks are going to ask questions. What happened there? And the police force is going to ask questions when their friends die without explanation, too.

And, since there is zero evidence regardless, why not blame the Joker or the mob boss?

You could do the latter, perhaps, aside from the problem that Maroni just died in a car accident after having his driver shot in the head. It's a mysterious incident. And the Joker, who's so open about his crimes, isn't taking credit, nor does it fit with anything else he's doing.

There's also the matter about the kidnapping of Gordon's family, which the whole police force knows about, and then trying to explain why Dent took a dive off a rooftop. And given that Batman was at the scene, it makes him a perfect scapegoat for all of the above.

All of this makes me feel that THE DARK KNIGHT's ending would be a brave and brilliant conclusion to the Nolan Batman saga.

Ultimately, Bruce Wayne discovers that society cannot accommodate a vigilante such as himself, however well-meaning or occasionally successful at bringing down bad guys, for his existence fundamentally runs counter to everything he aims to protect.

In the end, he is a fugitive, his crusade - when all is said and done - a failure. He has learnt that balance in the world can never be restored by one man acting off his own (pardon the pun) bat. And Rachel Dawes' beliefs in BATMAN BEGINS are finally vindicated.

Of course, BATMAN BEGINS 3 is completely guaranteed, but what a great ending for this particular interpretation of Batman, if I smugly say so myself. Bruce Wayne, when all is said and done, is not a hero but just a misguided, grubby little man brought low by his stupidity, self-righteousness and contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne, in addition to his lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money.

A two-film cautionary tale for those who would take the law into their own hands, and a wonderfully iconoclastic telling of the Batman story.

[marthaofca]

Dark Knight definitely a tremendous movie to watch...

[dodge]

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.

Sure, but the character of Two-Face has been around a lot longer than Anton Chigurh, and the coin has always been part of his character. I think if anybody's stealing from anybody, NO COUNTRY is stealing from Batman.

Well said, my learned friend. But the whole issue of 'borrowing' in art is discouragingly complex. For all I know, some may argue that coins have been flipped in countless films. And possibly they have. I confess to being far less familiar than you are with the Batman lore and background. But, even if Two-Face got there first, Anton Chigurh is the one many, many viewers are likely to remember--and possibly even believe--naughty Dodge!--that Chigurh did it first. My argument is this, then: the BM creative team should have taken this into account. A single line of dialogue--even very subtle--indicating that they were aware of 'the new discoverer'--and letting us no that BM got there first.

However coins were flipped in the past, what I remembered most about No Country was the total earnestness--and philosophical honesty--of Anton's coldblooded tosses. So in this one instance only, rightly or wrongly, The Joker seems to be just a bit of a clone.

Luckily, Ledger's performance blows that teensy objection right out of the pond.

[Harmsway]

But, even if Two-Face got there first, Anton Chigurh is the one many, many viewers are likely to remember--and possibly even believe--naughty Dodge!--that Chigurh did it first.

Maybe, maybe not. You're the first I've seen even suggest a thing, dodge. And Chigurh didn't do it first. Two-Face did, in the rather successful (and rather awful) BATMAN FOREVER.

My argument is this, then: the BM creative team should have taken this into account. A single line of dialogue--even very subtle--indicating that they were aware of 'the new discoverer'--and letting us no that BM got there first.

Why bother? It's really a non-issue. Indeed, you're the only person I've seen suggest it. And I think most folks are able to recognize that Batman lore is rooted in a very long history indeed, and was there long before Cormac McCarthy's novel or the following film.

Heck, 80% of the folks seeing THE DARK KNIGHT probably didn't even see NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, anyway.

[Loomis]

I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was more than hard enough. It could have gone into R territory if it wanted to, and it would have felt appropriate (especially with the Joker character), but I wasn't longing for any more extreme violence. I was sufficiently shocked and emotionally wiped by the content inside THE DARK KNIGHT to do without it.

Okay, but I think the filmmakers might as well have gone for broke, with a hard R a la RAMBO, or at least vintage DIE HARD levels of gore. Watching THE DARK KNIGHT it feels as though bloodshed was trimmed by the censors or taken out by a nervous studio, even if it wasn't even there in the first place. It feels curiously neutered.

[Harmsway]

I disagree (not that that's a surprise). THE DARK KNIGHT feels very uncompromising to me in that respect.

[baerrtt]

I disagree (not that that's a surprise). THE DARK KNIGHT feels very uncompromising to me in that respect.

The studio are to be applauded for allowing the tone of THE DARK KNIGHT to get through clearly unchanged. The existing tone and contents of the finished film if screened to studios (particularly the same studio that cranked out BATMAN FOREVER in reponse to the 'darkness' of BATMAN RETURNS) a decade ago would've made any of them nervous.

Whatever people's nitpicky gripes about the film, having seen it twice now it, for me so far, is the crowning example of this decade's trend of hiring serious and creative filmmakesrs (writers and directors) to create mainstream action movies.

Nolan, Bryan Singer, Greengrass, Tarantino, Haggis (and hopefully Forster), Raimi, Ang Lee, Timur Bekmambetov etc None of these films have been flawless yet there's more genuine maturity and creativity in the best of these entries penned and/or directed by these filmmakers than anything by genre stalwarts like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or MCG who no doubt will further ruin the Terminator franchise next year with his entry.

Edited by baerrtt, 29 July 2008 - 06:18 PM.

[Red Barchetta]

Saw THE DARK KNIGHT at the weekend, and what an incredible performance by Heath Ledger, I was totally blown away.

From the moment he enters the screen (even with a clown mask on) he completely dominates it and renders everyone else invisible. Even Batman himself is shadowed in his presence.

For me, Jack Nicolson had been synonimous with the role of The Joker since the first Batman ('Wait till they get a load of me!' on a par with 'HERE'S DADDY!!'), but now and I think forever more, it belongs firmly to HL. What a shame he has passed on, so much talent and charisma wasted. A friend of mine recently bemoaned that HL was in death likened with James Dean, as if it was undeserving. My view is that the death of James Dean robbed the world of a potential great actor, a grandmaster if you like such as Marlon Brando, Richard Burton and Bette Davis and I think Heath Ledger could have been one of them.

I completey agree. HL, for me, is now forever linked to the Joker. While watching the film, I could not help but think that Heath really passed too soon- he was to be a re-occuring villian in the reboot, and he would have been absolutely fantastic in the role!
Like ms minniespinney said, even in the clown mask he stole the secene- and you didn't know it was him until later!

[Publius]

That doesn't happen. You're not the only one to get confused on that point, though. He flips for Maroni, Maroni lives. So he flips for Maroni's driver, and Maroni's driver dies. He's definitely taking a loophole, but it's not a re-flip.

What I like about that loophole is that he put his own life in serious jeopardy by using it. I think that's when I realized how truly mad Dent had become.

In this specific case, he was against the Bat imitators because they were trying to kill - they're a different breed of vigilante. They're the breed of vigilante he's trying not to be. I don't know what he'd do if they'd just been people trying to help.

Also, Wayne is basically a trained ninja with a multibillion dollar corporate empire at his disposal.

Anyway, I saw the movie again recently -- this time in Imax. And boy, they're not kidding when they say there's really no other way to see it. All those bird's eye shots of Hong Kong and Gotham repeatedly gave me vertigo, and I loved it. Talk about a visual feast.

[Loomis]

I disagree (not that that's a surprise). THE DARK KNIGHT feels very uncompromising to me in that respect.

The studio are to be applauded for allowing the tone of THE DARK KNIGHT to get through clearly unchanged. The existing tone and contents of the finished film if screened to studios (particularly the same studio that cranked out BATMAN FOREVER in reponse to the 'darkness' of BATMAN RETURNS) a decade ago would've made any of them nervous.

Fair point. However, I still wish that THE DARK KNIGHT had gone further. It comes so very close to being truly a movie for grownups, but doesn't quite manage it. Which isn't to say that it's a washout or anything (I do like it - to an extent), merely that it could have been, uh, better.

Nolan, Bryan Singer, Greengrass, Tarantino, Haggis (and hopefully Forster), Raimi, Ang Lee, Timur Bekmambetov etc None of these films have been flawless yet there's more genuine maturity and creativity in the best of these entries penned and/or directed by these filmmakers than anything by genre stalwarts like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or MCG who no doubt will further ruin the Terminator franchise next year with his entry.

Again, you ain't wrong. You mention Tarantino, though - unless I'm forgetting something, he's never done a mainstream action movie. He's certainly been approached for studio franchise blockbuster fare (notably a MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. film that never came to pass - this was shortly after PULP FICTION, I think, which would have made him the first among those directors you cite had it happened).

You've got me thinking: should we be excited about Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming ROBOCOP flick?

And you've also got me thinking: who (barring Cameron) should be directing TERMINATOR 4? Not to derail this Batman thread, but I'd be interested in people's answers.

In this specific case, he was against the Bat imitators because they were trying to kill - they're a different breed of vigilante. They're the breed of vigilante he's trying not to be. I don't know what he'd do if they'd just been people trying to help.

Also, Wayne is basically a trained ninja with a multibillion dollar corporate empire at his disposal.

Yes. The superhero who buys his way to glory.

Anyway, I saw the movie again recently -- this time in Imax. And boy, they're not kidding when they say there's really no other way to see it. All those bird's eye shots of Hong Kong and Gotham repeatedly gave me vertigo, and I loved it. Talk about a visual feast.

I just can't wait to see it in IMAX.

[Harmsway]

You've got me thinking: should we be excited about Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming ROBOCOP flick?

I am, and I'm not even a ROBOCOP fan. I'm interested to see what a guy like Aronofsky will do with it.

And you've also got me thinking: who (barring Cameron) should be directing TERMINATOR 4? Not to derail this Batman thread, but I'd be interested in people's answers.

Why not John Carpenter? I know he's been on a steady decline, but hey, I'd be interested to see what he'd do with it. Or David Fincher, if they could convince him to step on board with the promise of absolute control (so as to avoid another ALIEN 3).

[Loomis]

You've got me thinking: should we be excited about Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming ROBOCOP flick?

I am, and I'm not even a ROBOCOP fan. I'm interested to see what a guy like Aronofsky will do with it.

Yeah, it does seem interesting. What intrigues me is that (well, according to some reports I've read, which may or may not be reliable) this apparently isn't a remake/reboot. Instead, it's that almost extinct thing: a straight sequel (yep, to ROBOCOP 3 *shudder*).

And you've also got me thinking: who (barring Cameron) should be directing TERMINATOR 4? Not to derail this Batman thread, but I'd be interested in people's answers.

Why not John Carpenter? I know he's been on a steady decline, but hey, I'd be interested to see what he'd do with it. Or David Fincher, if they could convince him to step on board with the promise of absolute control (so as to avoid another ALIEN 3).

Those are decent names (although Carpenter's surely been on a decline for decades!), but I think we should be thinking rather more "outside the box" to come up with interesting names. I mean, Carpenter and Fincher both have genre movie sequel blood on their hands already. But not, of course, so outside the box as to be ludicrous, e.g. Bernardo Bertolucci.*

I'm thinking of directors who'd be surprising but not outlandish. How about Edward Zwick? Or, no, here's one: combining his experience of epics about a troubled Los Angeles (CRASH) and beautifully crafted mainstream blockbusters (CASINO ROYALE), who better than rumoured T4 script polisher Paul Haggis?

*As should be obvious, he's probably tied up with pre-production duties on BOND 23.

[Harmsway]

Yeah, it does seem interesting. What intrigues me is that (well, according to some reports I've read, which may or may not be reliable) this apparently isn't a remake/reboot. Instead, it's that almost extinct thing: a straight sequel (yep, to ROBOCOP 3 *shudder*).

Indeed. If nothing else, I'm sure it'll look good. Aronofsky has a great eye. THE FOUNTAIN, although a rather pretentious and silly film, is a delight to watch just because of how beautiful it all is.

I'm thinking of directors who'd be surprising but not outlandish. How about Edward Zwick? Or, no, here's one: combining his experience of epics about a troubled Los Angeles (CRASH) and beautifully crafted mainstream blockbusters (CASINO ROYALE), who better than rumoured T4 script polisher Paul Haggis?

Neither are particularly surprising, but both would be good choices, to be sure. There's a lot of viable quality director choices for a movie like TERMINATOR 4, especially since it's in a place to be a very different movie from its predecessors.

[baerrtt]

I disagree (not that that's a surprise). THE DARK KNIGHT feels very uncompromising to me in that respect.

The studio are to be applauded for allowing the tone of THE DARK KNIGHT to get through clearly unchanged. The existing tone and contents of the finished film if screened to studios (particularly the same studio that cranked out BATMAN FOREVER in reponse to the 'darkness' of BATMAN RETURNS) a decade ago would've made any of them nervous.

Fair point. However, I still wish that THE DARK KNIGHT had gone further. It comes so very close to being truly a movie for grownups, but doesn't quite manage it. Which isn't to say that it's a washout or anything (I do like it - to an extent), merely that it could have been, uh, better.

Nolan, Bryan Singer, Greengrass, Tarantino, Haggis (and hopefully Forster), Raimi, Ang Lee, Timur Bekmambetov etc None of these films have been flawless yet there's more genuine maturity and creativity in the best of these entries penned and/or directed by these filmmakers than anything by genre stalwarts like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or MCG who no doubt will further ruin the Terminator franchise next year with his entry.

Again, you ain't wrong. You mention Tarantino, though - unless I'm forgetting something, he's never done a mainstream action movie. He's certainly been approached for studio franchise blockbuster fare (notably a MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. film that never came to pass - this was shortly after PULP FICTION, I think, which would have made him the first among those directors you cite had it happened).

You've got me thinking: should we be excited about Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming ROBOCOP flick?

And you've also got me thinking: who (barring Cameron) should be directing TERMINATOR 4? Not to derail this Batman thread, but I'd be interested in people's answers.

In this specific case, he was against the Bat imitators because they were trying to kill - they're a different breed of vigilante. They're the breed of vigilante he's trying not to be. I don't know what he'd do if they'd just been people trying to help.

Also, Wayne is basically a trained ninja with a multibillion dollar corporate empire at his disposal.

Yes. The superhero who buys his way to glory.

Anyway, I saw the movie again recently -- this time in Imax. And boy, they're not kidding when they say there's really no other way to see it. All those bird's eye shots of Hong Kong and Gotham repeatedly gave me vertigo, and I loved it. Talk about a visual feast.

I just can't wait to see it in IMAX.

In reference to Tarantino I was alluding to KILL BILL (not a big movie but certainly mainstream, if bizarrely so), which as mindless and ott as it is, has more genuine creativity in the action scenes and a lead performance(Uma Thurman's) that's played totally straight and real despite the mostly unreal circumstances.

If Michael Bay got his hands on it (or any of the mentioned directors best action pictures) we'd end up with characters acting like they know they're in an action film/blockbuster, which is the wrong way to play it.

[Skudor]

Saw THE DARK KNIGHT on Saturday. 22:20 showing at my local cinema - packed wall to wall.

I'd give it a solid four stars as a film and five stars as an action movie. It feels intelligent without really compromising the fact that it's about a bloke who dresses in leather and beats up amazingly incompetent hoodlooms in his spare time.

My main, and only, gripe was Two-Face's second face. Everything else in the film felt grounded in reality - I could buy into it despite it being a comic book movie. It felt no less real than Heat or Ronin or whatever other cop and robbers film you can think of. But that silly half burnt out face was just too much. Personally I would have left it far less alive and gotten rid of the eye (surely that would have melted away with the rest anyway?).

Heath Ledger really shines. His Oscar performance was Broke Back Mountain, not THE DARK KNIGHT - he deserves what he didn't get then. The brilliance of the Joker lies in the completely believable anarchy of the character.

Will watch it again at least once in the cinema.