2081 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

I know we went to the premiere, but still, I wish I'd known about this!

Yeah, and what a helluva night that premiere was. Good times.

Understatement of the century!

Can anyone confirm that Casino Royale did, indeed, play at IMAX?

[Loomis]

A very interesting (and very positive) review of THE DARK KNIGHT:

http://www.spiked-on...te/article/5534

Handily enough, you can watch the trailer on the same page, and watching it right after reading the review is a striking and genuinely unnerving experience. Try it.

Good review.

Let's go back to Alexandra DuPont's AICN review, in which she mentions a couple of things I really love about THE DARK KNIGHT.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37515

The Joker. I think it's wonderful that the character has no Origin Story™ here. Not only does it make him scarier, but it also allows the viewer to bring his own imagination into play. DuPont: My pet theory is that he's a bored, brilliant and homicidally insane trust-fund kid.

Now that's an idea so eccentric yet so cool that I fell in love with it as soon as I read those words. The Joker as a minor league black sheep of a great family like, say, the Kennedys. Taking it one step further, one supposes that it's more than possible that, as a boy, say, and at, for instance, a wedding, the Joker would have rubbed shoulders with members of other wealthy and powerful dynasties like.... the Wayne family.

Of course, if that were actually spelled out in the film, it would probably just come across as a load of rubbish. Left as a matter for the audience's imagination, though, it's pure gold. I'll say it again: no origin yarn for the Joker = one of the movie's masterstrokes.

DuPont: The blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot of Ledger without makeup during an assassination attempt at a police funeral. It's the only time you see his naked eyes.

Somehow, the Joker dressed as an ordinary member of the public (well, a cop, but you get my drift) is even more frightening than the Joker dressed as, well, the Joker. For me, THE DARK KNIGHT is not the flawless intellectual masterpiece it's often made out to be (although I say that having seen it "only" once); instead, it's an imperfect but powerful work that trades principally in unsettling, haunting visuals.... and the sight of the Joker's "naked eyes" (creepy expression, huh? Especially when attached to the Joker) is one of them. Another - which I've mentioned before on this thread - is the shot of the Joker leaning out of the police car, apparently in some sort of state of dark ecstasy (it's one of the images illustrating DuPont's review).

Considering all the above, I wonder whether there are grounds to consider THE DARK KNIGHT as, first and foremost, a horror film (and one with a downbeat 1970s tinge recalling THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION and so on).

More and more, BATMAN BEGINS (while it may well be the more coherent and even the more entertaining flick) seems a piece of work sullied by studio input, with THE DARK KNIGHT being clearly the point at which Nolan truly cuts loose with his own vision.

[Publius]

I call it an "ultimately selfish crusade" because---- well, answer me this: does Batman do what he does out of a genuine desire to do good and rid the world of evil, or is he really just lashing out in what M would call inconsolable rage in order to avenge his childhood trauma at the hands of Joe Chill? Does it ultimately boil down to serial revenge, with our "hero" letting himself off the moral hook on the grounds that his prey are, to quote Arnie in TRUE LIES, all bad?

Can't it be both? Honestly. One can be driven by both a personal desire for revenge and a desire for social justice. One can be both selfish and selfless. Without derailing this thread, I think many altruists are. They put others before themselves and often even compromise their very lives (selfless), but they also get a damn good feeling out of it that can leave them with a sense that they're some rare and special agent of God (selfish). Not all of them, of course, but it's common.

At what point in the BB/TDK saga does Wayne move "from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way"?

You see, the whole problem I have with the idea of Wayne as a selfless do-gooder is that the saga takes great pains to "explain" how violent childhood trauma changed his life and set him upon his present path. And if that isn't a path of revenge I don't know what a path of revenge is.

When he went to kill Joe Chill, he was being mostly selfish because he was only considering what happened to him, not what the bigger fish (especially those that enabled the likes of Chill) were doing to an entire city. After he started to understand the menace of Falconi and similar thugs, it would make sense for Wayne to have no problem killing such a murderer (one who killed on a far wider scale and much more maliciously than Chill did).

Yet, Wayne didn't kill him. Nor did he kill anyone else in Begins, even Ra's. And yes, I think letting Ra's stay on the train was different from killing him, because it was Ra's who hijacked the train in the first place. It's like Bond escaping from the falling jeep in The Living Daylights. Maybe if Ra's had asked to be forgiven or for his life to be saved, but he instead proclaimed that Wayne was finally ready to do the killing that is necessary (in this case, him).

Anyway, it's when he decided to become a symbol rather than just a man, when he decided not killing would be part of his code, when he decided to work with the "proper" authorities as much as possible, when he decided that he was to be a short-term kick-start for Gotham... that's when he made the transition away from simple vengeance.

[Professor Dent]

Saw the IMAX version of TDK. If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend it. As previously mentioned, there is about 25 minutes of IMAX footage. The opening flyover of Chicago before the bank job was excellent. I got that typical IMAX feeling of motion as the camera was moving forward. The scenes of Hong Kong were equally as stunning.

One thing I paid much closer attention to this time around was the music. There is this slow build-up almost like a siren that happens several times throughout the movie before something bad happens. I didn't really notice it the first time I saw the movie but it was pretty obvious this time around. If you have the soundtrack, you can hear it in the first minute of the "Why So Serious?" cue.

Can anyone confirm that Casino Royale did, indeed, play at IMAX?

Sad to say but Casino Royale was not released in IMAX. I saw clips for the new Harry Potter flick & The Watchmen before TDK so it looks like Quantum of Solace won't be shown in IMAX either.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm attending my friends birthday party tomorrow night, I've decided to go as the Joker. since it's fancy dress....









What do you think?

[Safari Suit]

It's No. 1 at the US Box Office again, fending off competition from the third Mummy film (long suspected this would underperform).

[tdalton]

It's No. 1 at the US Box Office again, fending off competition from the third Mummy film (long suspected this would underperform).

I'm definitely not surprised by this. Every theater that I've seen over the past week has been packed, and given the relatively weak competition that The Dark Knight has had thus far, I thought it safe to assume that the majority of the crowd was there for The Dark Knight. It'll be interesting to see if the film can retain the #1 position again next week or if Pineapple Express will be the film that finally overtakes The Dark Knight. I think that it'll be very close, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if either film finished in the top spot.

[Safari Suit]

I imagine Express will be number one next weekend, but only because TDK will likely drop to the $17mil-$22mil range (in my estimation).

Personally, I think the "loveable loser" genre is even more played out by now than comic book flicks, but that's just me!

[HildebrandRarity]

Saw it again last night...but sadly not in IMAX as all IMAX showings were sold out for Saturday in the area.

After savouring the delicious little morsels I now raise my rating to 8.75 from the 8.5 of opening weekend. I still have a slight problem with the way the main batmobile and bat-cycle/pod chase ends up going 'below' where the convoy was going to be like "turkeys on thanksgiving day" and where the action is still slighly less than fully discernable. I still don't like the cliche'd Hollywoodness of the Ferries-At-Midnight scene but there was a lot to savour during the 150 minutes and this time I stuck around to see the "In memory of our friends..." line in the credits.

Who was the 2nd person they give a tribute to, by the way...anyone here shed some light?

I still want to check out IMAX.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Who was the 2nd person they give a tribute to, by the way...anyone here shed some light?

He was a stunt man who was killed in an accident on the set.

Edited by ImTheMoneypenny, 03 August 2008 - 10:49 PM.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I'm attending my friends birthday party tomorrow night, I've decided to go as the Joker. since it's fancy dress....









What do you think?

Sorry I missed these, skimming the thread! Good job with the make-up! Nicely done, Mharkin!

[Loomis]

Saw it again last night...but sadly not in IMAX as all IMAX showings were sold out for Saturday in the area.

After savouring the delicious little morsels I now raise my rating to 8.75 from the 8.5 of opening weekend. I still have a slight problem with the way the main batmobile and bat-cycle/pod chase ends up going 'below' where the convoy was going to be like "turkeys on thanksgiving day" and where the action is still slighly less than fully discernable. I still don't like the cliche'd Hollywoodness of the Ferries-At-Midnight scene but there was a lot to savour during the 150 minutes and this time I stuck around to see the "In memory of our friends..." line in the credits.

Who was the 2nd person they give a tribute to, by the way...anyone here shed some light?

I still want to check out IMAX.

I have a curious relationship with THE DARK KNIGHT: I think it's in many ways a preposterously overrated film, and one that's worth watching only for some tremendous visual flourishes and two excellent performances (Eckhart and Ledger).... but I can't deny that I'm itching to see it again, and at a regular cinema viewing if I'm unable to get IMAX tickets. But does this say more about the poor quality of the current competition during this wretched summer for new blockbusters (INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL BORE, etc.) than it does about the quality of THE DARK KNIGHT?

Still, THE DARK KNIGHT is undeniably an "event" - and perhaps it's even on the cusp of being a phenomenon (can't see it outgrossing TITANIC, though - can you?), and for some crazy reason that I fail to understand I'm more than willing to sit through it again. More than one theatrical viewing for a film is very rare for me, and something I usually do only for Bond (for instance, I saw CASINO ROYALE on the big screen three times.... and even that didn't feel like enough).

[HildebrandRarity]

Ah...thanks, ImTheMoneypenny. Such sadness surrounding this bittersweet motion picture.

Saw it again last night...but sadly not in IMAX as all IMAX showings were sold out for Saturday in the area.

After savouring the delicious little morsels I now raise my rating to 8.75 from the 8.5 of opening weekend. I still have a slight problem with the way the main batmobile and bat-cycle/pod chase ends up going 'below' where the convoy was going to be like "turkeys on thanksgiving day" and where the action is still slighly less than fully discernable. I still don't like the cliche'd Hollywoodness of the Ferries-At-Midnight scene but there was a lot to savour during the 150 minutes and this time I stuck around to see the "In memory of our friends..." line in the credits.

Who was the 2nd person they give a tribute to, by the way...anyone here shed some light?

I still want to check out IMAX.

I have a curious relationship with THE DARK KNIGHT: I think it's in many ways a preposterously overrated film, and one that's worth watching only for some tremendous visual flourishes and two excellent performances (Eckhart and Ledger).... but I can't deny that I'm itching to see it again, and at a regular cinema viewing if I'm unable to get IMAX tickets. But does this say more about the poor quality of the current competition during this wretched summer for new blockbusters (INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL BORE, etc.) than it does about the quality of THE DARK KNIGHT?

Still, THE DARK KNIGHT is undeniably an "event" - and perhaps it's even on the cusp of being a phenomenon (can't see it outgrossing TITANIC, though - can you?), and for some crazy reason that I fail to understand I'm more than willing to sit through it again. More than one theatrical viewing for a film is very rare for me, and something I usually do only for Bond (for instance, I saw CASINO ROYALE on the big screen three times.... and even that didn't feel like enough).

I think there are some truly outstanding and memorable pieces of cinematography, some delicious performances (from all three, btw...you can see that Bale does a great deal eventhough his Wayne character does not call for the ott-type portrayals which Joker and Harvey Two Face call for) and an at-times rousing, moving score.

I think you can see that there is some great beauty in part of the film and your subconscious beckons for another Big Screen viewing inspite of some of its perceived flaws.

I think people appreciate that blood was poured into the film and that it's trying desperately not to be your normal corporate offering...which makes it 'special' in some way.

I think if something moves you and makes some form of an emotional connection with you, then it has done its job. Whether what moves you is a person or sporting endeavour/event or a piece of art such as music or writing or film or a canvass itself.

I think The Dark Knight has 'something' in it that moves you (at least it 'moved' me in some way) and, as a result, you're willing to give yourself to it even though it's not a flawless piece of work.

Finally, one can go months without going to the cinema or movie theatre because there's nothing worthwile to see. Whether there's competition or no competition, "wretched" or otherwise, is irrelevant because the cream always rises.

[Loomis]

you can see that Bale does a great deal eventhough his Wayne character does not call for the ott-type portrayals which Joker and Harvey Two Face call for

Indeed. I also really enjoyed watching Caine and Freeman.

an at-times rousing, moving score.

Yes, a fine, fine score.

I think people appreciate that blood was poured into the film and that it's not your normal corporate offering...which makes it 'special' in some way.

Very true. THE DARK KNIGHT has a thrillingly organic feel. I don't like everything that Nolan and co. have done with the film, but boy do I appreciate the thought and passion they've put into it. In some ways, it would actually be a lesser experience for me if I considered it a perfect film.

I think if something moves you and makes some form of an emotional connection with you, then it has done its job. Whether what moves you is a person or a piece of art such as music or writing or film.

You're absolutely right. And that's what I want in a film: that emotional connection. It's what it's all about, as far as I'm concerned, which I why I consider, say, ROCKY an immeasurably better film - indeed a vastly superior work of art - to something "intellectual" yet dry and dull like THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

[Professor Dent]

Saw it again last night...but sadly not in IMAX as all IMAX showings were sold out for Saturday in the area.

I bought my IMAX tickets two days ahead of time. They do two showings a night by me & both have been sell outs every night. As of Friday night, there were already shows that were sold out for next week. Talk about box office gold.

[A Kristatos]

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.

Thank you! I finally saw the movie yesterday. It was good, but it did not match the hype. Sensory overload for me. Just too much action and plot twists rammed into 2 1/2 hours. Certainly excellent CGI and actual stunt work unlike a certain Brosnan Bond film, but still way too much!

Heath Ledger's performance however was as good as advertised, without question! That part of the hype was warranted. The acting all around was terrific, the special effects as just mentioned were top notch, and the city of Chicago has never looked better in a movie! But again, a movie is only as good as the sum of all of its parts, and the one part that lacked big time was the execution of the story, which probably needed about an extra hour or so to allow for additional character development, and to allow the audience to breathe a little more.

So as you said Hildebrand, we'll see how history eventually judges this Batman installment against earlier episodes and against other movie franchises. I liked this movie and gave it a solid 3 stars out of 4, but I'll take a great Bond movie over this any day!

Edited by A Kristatos, 04 August 2008 - 03:55 AM.

[Publius]

One thing I paid much closer attention to this time around was the music. There is this slow build-up almost like a siren that happens several times throughout the movie before something bad happens. I didn't really notice it the first time I saw the movie but it was pretty obvious this time around. If you have the soundtrack, you can hear it in the first minute of the "Why So Serious?" cue.

You mean this?

I think it's the best theme for a villain in ages. It really captures that powerless and "gripped with terror" feeling that seems to consume the people of Gotham throughout the movie.

At the IMAX I went to, instead of the commercials you usually get at regular theaters they just had the Batman logo on the screen with that track playing in the background. What a great build-up before the film. Not sure if that's how everyone else experienced it.

[dodge]

I'm in a state of deep despair because TDK failed to change Loomis' life. Actually, I'd predicted that it might save his soul...and it failed on both counts.

And yet, through my gloom a smidgin of light radiates: the film will reach $400 million by Tuesday, it's predicted. And, according to McPaper, Dan Fellman of Warner Bros says: "We're beginning to look at a final number with at least a 5 in front of it.'

Mr. Fellman, Mr. Fellman, please have your people call mine:

I say it'll top The Titanic.

There, now, that puts a smile on my face!

[Professor Dent]

One thing I paid much closer attention to this time around was the music. There is this slow build-up almost like a siren that happens several times throughout the movie before something bad happens. I didn't really notice it the first time I saw the movie but it was pretty obvious this time around. If you have the soundtrack, you can hear it in the first minute of the "Why So Serious?" cue.

You mean this?

I think it's the best theme for a villain in ages. It really captures that powerless and "gripped with terror" feeling that seems to consume the people of Gotham throughout the movie.

At the IMAX I went to, instead of the commercials you usually get at regular theaters they just had the Batman logo on the screen with that track playing in the background. What a great build-up before the film. Not sure if that's how everyone else experienced it.

That's it!

At the IMAX I went to, they had local advertisements playing before the movie. As the lights dimmed, they showed basically the logo for the new Harry Potter movie with a "coming soon" & part of the trailer for The Watchmen. It looked like a shorter trailer than the one I saw before TDK in the regular theater. Possibly, it was only IMAX scenes that were shown. If I see TDK again in IMAX, I'll pay closer attention.

[Publius]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Well, it's almost guaranteed to take the #2 spot on the unadjusted domestic list away from A New Hope, but I can't see it getting the $600 million needed to topple Titanic.

[Professor Dent]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Well, it's almost guaranteed to take the #2 spot on the unadjusted domestic list away from A New Hope, but I can't see it getting the $600 million needed to topple Titanic.

I agree on the # 2 spot & share the feeling on the $600 million for TDK being tough. TDK has had an incredible run so far & has racked-up a ton of money in a very short amount of time. One thing going for it has been very little competition at the box office which will change. The thing that stands out for me about Titanic was that it just never seemed to leave the theaters. I remember seeing it playing five months after it was released & there were still people going to see it. Time will tell but TDK has the best chance of beating it than any other movie that has come along since.

[Safari Suit]

http://www.digitalsp...12a-rating.html

I'm surprised they didn't rate it 15 if for no other reason than it was obvious so many children would see it at 12A. That said I firmly believe children are less fragile than people think when it comes to these things.

[Mr. Blofeld]

One thing I paid much closer attention to this time around was the music. There is this slow build-up almost like a siren that happens several times throughout the movie before something bad happens. I didn't really notice it the first time I saw the movie but it was pretty obvious this time around. If you have the soundtrack, you can hear it in the first minute of the "Why So Serious?" cue.

You mean this?

I think it's the best theme for a villain in ages. It really captures that powerless and "gripped with terror" feeling that seems to consume the people of Gotham throughout the movie.

At the IMAX I went to, instead of the commercials you usually get at regular theaters they just had the Batman logo on the screen with that track playing in the background. What a great build-up before the film. Not sure if that's how everyone else experienced it.

That's it!

At the IMAX I went to, they had local advertisements playing before the movie. As the lights dimmed, they showed basically the logo for the new Harry Potter movie with a "coming soon" & part of the trailer for Watchmen. It looked like a shorter trailer than the one I saw before TDK in the regular theater. Possibly, it was only IMAX scenes that were shown. If I see TDK again in IMAX, I'll pay closer attention.

Same with me, but let me tell you, the Watchmen trailer looked fantastic in IMAX.

Also, I just saw The Dark Knight again in IMAX after seeing it at a regular theatre a couple of weeks ago, and I was stunned. There is no way to put into words the sort of experience that IMAX gives you, short of attempting to induce synesthesia.

[Loomis]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Are you being serious? It won't. It can't. I shan't let it!

Anyone with me on the feeling that THE DARK KNIGHT has been a little too - no, considerably too - successful, both critically and commercially, for the Bat franchise's own good, as it were? I mean, BATMAN BEGINS 3's guaranteed to look like a flopperoo when it fails - by some distance - to match TDK's phenomenal haul.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I don't like that "Because he's the hero..." and "Because he's not a hero..." make their way into the same paragraph. Someone please help me to find sense in that, because right now it looks like some disgruntled sound technician deliberately tampered with the dialogue to screw the film.

I don't know precisely why it's written that way. My guess is that Gordon's drawing the distinction between being a true hero and being a hero in the public eye. In truth, he's a real hero - he's the noble character that Gotham should adore - but in his public role, he's not a hero at all.

Actually, I finally managed to see it in IMAX today, and I noticed that, what, with the improved sound quality, Gordon does not say "a hero", but "our hero"; hence, the phrase corrected runs thusly:

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... the Dark Knight."

My reading of the line was that Batman was not "their hero", the hero everyone regarded with admiration and celebrated; that role went to Harvey Dent. Batman was, instead, as said earlier, "he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now".

Problem solved.

[Harmsway]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Are you being serious? It won't. It can't. I shan't let it!

It probably won't, but I hope it does. Caught a good portion of TITANIC on the telly the other day, and lord, TITANIC is worse than I remembered. The script is appalling, the performances awkward, visuals so-so... it's dire. I daresay it's so bad that PEARL HARBOR comes out looking mighty good in comparison.

Actually, I finally managed to see it in IMAX today, and I noticed that, what, with the improved sound quality, Gordon does not say "a hero", but "our hero"; hence, the phrase corrected runs thusly:

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... the Dark Knight."

My reading of the line was that Batman was not "their hero", the hero everyone regarded with admiration and celebrated; that role went to Harvey Dent. Batman was, instead, as said earlier, "he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now".

Problem solved.

Ah. Good catch, there.

[Professor Dent]

Same with me, but let me tell you, the Watchmen trailer looked fantastic in IMAX.

I'm with you on this one - it did look excellent.

[baerrtt]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Are you being serious? It won't. It can't. I shan't let it!

It probably won't, but I hope it does. Caught a good portion of TITANIC on the telly the other day, and lord, TITANIC is worse than I remembered. The script is appalling, the performances awkward, visuals so-so... it's dire. I daresay it's so bad that PEARL HARBOR comes out looking mighty good in comparison.

Actually, I finally managed to see it in IMAX today, and I noticed that, what, with the improved sound quality, Gordon does not say "a hero", but "our hero"; hence, the phrase corrected runs thusly:

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... the Dark Knight."

My reading of the line was that Batman was not "their hero", the hero everyone regarded with admiration and celebrated; that role went to Harvey Dent. Batman was, instead, as said earlier, "he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now".

Problem solved.

Ah. Good catch, there.

TITANIC lost it's lustre for me similarly once I purchased it on it's video release 10 years. The flaws the critics were carping about were alot more noticeable (the cardboard characters and script). Still I wouldn't go so far as to say PEARL HARBOUR was any better .

[Loomis]

I say it'll top The Titanic.

Are you being serious? It won't. It can't. I shan't let it!

It probably won't, but I hope it does. Caught a good portion of TITANIC on the telly the other day, and lord, TITANIC is worse than I remembered. The script is appalling, the performances awkward, visuals so-so... it's dire. I daresay it's so bad that PEARL HARBOR comes out looking mighty good in comparison.

You won't be surprised to hear that I loved PEARL HARBOR. You can keep all the other Michael Bay films, though - well, apart from THE ROCK, which is entertaining nonsense (I remember seeing the trailer for THE ROCK at a cinema and being convinced - till I saw the credits - that John McTiernan had a new flick coming out, since it seemed to clone the style of the then-influential DIE HARD director).

[Harmsway]

Just curious, when was the last time you watched TITANIC and/or PEARL HARBOR?