2081 replies to this topic

[AngryPolarBear]

If the references weren’t obvious enough, the Time magazine critic Richard Corliss calls the Joker “the Bin Laden of movie villains”.

I personally think Ra's Al Ghul is the Bin Laden of movie villains. He's the ideological one. The man with a goal of his actions, showing the people of Gotham that they're leaving their lives wrong and now they have to pay the price.

And yeah, that article is looking too deep into things. People are watching TDK because Begins was great, that this movie looked even better, the trailer/posters was amazing, the Joker was in it, critics praised it and Heath Ledger died.

Edited by AngryPolarBear, 17 August 2008 - 08:44 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Back in the last decade, nobody would have done something like this. There's been an obvious cultural shift going on since the time of Batman & Robin and GoldenEye ; a shift most likely brought on by a traumatic psychological event, perhaps even several, upon the whole of a population...

[Mister E]

Back in the last decade, nobody would have done something like this. There's been an obvious cultural shift going on since the time of Batman & Robin and GoldenEye ; a shift most likely brought on by a traumatic psychological event, perhaps even several, upon the whole of a population...

That dosen't mean TDK has any of the depth people seem to be proclaiming it has.

[Andrew]

The Nolans' are on record in saying that there are supposed to be some parallels between the War on Terror and the events of TDK so in some instances people aren't looking too much into it. There was a fascinating interview with the brothers where they discuss it in TotalFilm magazine I think.

In terms of 9/11, one just has to look at the theatrical poster to see the imagery.

http://img205.images...76/dark2pe3.jpg

Saying that the film praises GWB and that Batman represents him is a bit too far though. They have obviously forgotten about Batman's "no kill" policy, something that GWB obviously doesn't have judging by the amount of executions he approved of as Governor of Texas.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Oh boy, I think people are looking far too into things. So much analysis as to why it is hit and of course some genius once again says 9/11 and people gasp.

I don't think so. Whether its a reason for the film's success is a matter for debate but the parallels between the plot and what's happening in the world are pretty clear.

I'm steering clear of QOS spoilers but I wouldn't be suprised if we see similar articles written about QOS in a few months.

[Arbogast777]

They have obviously forgotten about Batman's "no kill" policy, something that GWB obviously doesn't have judging by the amount of executions he approved of as Governor of Texas.

Ok, not to get into a political discussion, but we have to be fair here and get the facts right...

As Governor, in order to overturn a verdict handed down by a jury, Bush would have had to show that something corrupt had happened during the process, either with the juries, judges, or lawyers. In other words, he could have disagreed with the sentence of death completely, but the only way he could have stopped it is if it had been shown that the system was corrupt and the defendant had been denied a fair trial. Overturning a jury is something that isn't, and shouldn't, be something that one man can easily do.

Edited by Arbogast777, 18 August 2008 - 12:05 AM.

[Andrew]

They have obviously forgotten about Batman's "no kill" policy, something that GWB obviously doesn't have judging by the amount of executions he approved of as Governor of Texas.

Ok, not to get into a political discussion, but we have to be fair here and get the facts right...

As Governor, in order to overturn a verdict handed down by a jury, Bush would have had to show that something corrupt had happened during the process, either with the juries, judges, or lawyers. In other words, he could have disagreed with the sentence of death completely, but the only way he could have stopped it is if it had been shown that the system was corrupt and the defendant had been denied a fair trial. Overturning a jury is something that isn't, and shouldn't, be something that one man can easily do.

He still had to sign the warrant and he had the power to commute sentences. See below:

During his tenure, Bush signed the execution warrants for more death row inmates than any other Governor in the history of Texas, averaging a death every nine days.[5] The only death penalty case among the 153 that came across George W. Bush's desk in his tenure as Texas Governor in which Governor Bush intervened and commuted the death sentence was that of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.

http://en.wikipedia....vernor_of_Texas

Either way, he is still a supporter of the death penalty and therefore my point stands.

[HildebrandRarity]

there must be something else going on for TDK to be a smash of the magnitude that it is. It must be tickling the world's psyche in some fashion beyond the obvious.

Ergo, I was idly stirring the waters of speculation as to what TDK's hidden X-factor may be. Are young men of the early 21st century finding that the triumvirate of Wayne/Dent/Joker holds up some kind of mirror to them? Does TDK reflect our feelings in this post-9/11 world? Am I talking bollocks? Yes, but it's still a fair question: why has THE DARK KNIGHT become - arguably - the first popcorn franchise blockbuster of the 00s to achieve the status of a genuine phenomenon? How come it's done so frickin' well?

It has something to do with the fact that for the first time since the Lees, a popular and handsome young actor has tragically died after pouring everything into an iconic role, into a charachter that's been around for most peoples lives.

The story and the circumstances lends itself to people looking at mortality and morality during dark times.

There's a meloncholy to be shared by the multitudes...and a shortened life to to be celebrated and applauded.

This movie does that for the masses.

You may be interested in today's Sunday Times article on the DARK KNIGHT phenomenon:

http://entertainment...icle4524352.ece

How Batman became cinema's top trump

Christopher Goodwin

Every decade or so, a film passes from box-office hit to cultural phenomenon...

The article made me wince because it distills the success of this movie in the 'terrorist thing' with a decidedly American angle.

It's full of , my friend.

I was thinking in a different direction. More to do with mortality. Our mortalilty and the reflection which comes when someone famous and beautiful dies young. Pricess Diana, for instance. And I was thinking about morality. I mean BIG morality...the type of morality that transcends geo-political boundries/borders like Bush/America/9-11 and organized religion.

TDK is a movie and inflation means another movie will come along and trump its box office. Such is life and ticket price inflation. I suspect the writer needed to write something because it's part of his job description and there's nothing really insightful in there. Just Fluff 'a la Americain. If Ledger was still alive, I suspect TDK would have sold less tickets. Ledger was popular and the young and old can do nothing to celebrate his life en mass other than to see his final performance in an iconic role. It ain't Citizen Kane, after all.

[Loomis]

Just got back from THE DARK KNIGHT. My initial thoughts:

For the most part, it's an elegant, intelligent and absorbing film with an epic feel, fine performances (mostly) and some gorgeous visuals. Definitely one to see on the big screen, and I may well check out THE IMAX EXPERIENCE.

And never did I imagine that the day would come when I'd sit through - of all things - a Batman flick and find myself not only caring (well, somewhat) about the characters but wanting to know more about them.

However, TDK has its share of flaws. It's overlong and, especially towards the end, overwrought. My heart sank when they introduced the line about the hero Gotham needs but doesn't deserve, because I knew they'd beat it to death like that ballsaching mantra in BATMAN BEGINS about falling so we can learn to get up again. Yes, folks, just like BEGINS, TDK eventually drowns in its own po-faced self-importance (except, of course, when it's leaning on that good old standby of wisecracking cops ).

Another thing it has in common with BEGINS is that its first half is so much stronger than its second - TDK takes its sweet time lumbering to an underwhelming conclusion, although its action (which rather often resembles that in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, albeit put together much better) is at least not nearly as dull as that of its predecessor. That said, there's precious little action here that's truly eye-popping and edge-of-seat.

(And I feel compelled to ask: why not? Like INDY 4, TDK drops the ball on what ought to have been a slam dunk.)

Bale, Caine, Freeman and Gyllenhaal are good (Bale is good as Wayne, that is - as Batman, well, he's merely another shlub in a batsuit), although I felt Oldman hammed it up a bit. Ledger is fine, although I'd hardly call his performance something extraoardinary, and to my mind it wasn't especially different to Nicholson's, not that that matters. But his acting doesn't reinvent the wheel, and don't let anybody tell you different.

Best performance? Eckhart, by a country mile (whatever that is). In fact, he carries the film, being easily the most compelling character so far in this series.

Is TDK superior to BEGINS? I don't know. At its best, it's certainly far more exciting, but then again BEGINS may hang together slightly better.

Is it better than CASINO ROYALE? Nope, not nearly. Go to CR for some truly great characterisation, drama and a general sense of a good (and worthwhile) story well told. I found the narrative of TDK confusing in places, and it all just peters out into an orgy of chest-beating.

I'm giving it a somewhat generous 7 out of 10. No. Make it 6.5.

Having now seen THE DARK KNIGHT a second time, I'm raising my rating to 8.5. Never did I think the day would come when I'd see a Batman film at the cinema twice, but the big screen is truly where TDK is meant to be seen. What an amazing visual feast.

On second viewing, those wonderful visuals and the incredible work of Messrs Eckhart and Ledger were once again what made the movie for me, but this time round I noticed just how witty the script is in places, as well as just how intense the whole thing is - as with THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, I'm amazed that something this dark has been so popular. I mean, in places it has all the gothic gloom of a Joy Division album. Will BATMAN BEGINS 3 go even darker? Is it possible to go even darker?

But will - and I know that this sounds like a stupid question, but indulge me - BATMAN BEGINS 3 even be made at all? How can Nolan and co. possibly top TDK? How can they find a villain to match the Joker? How can they plug the hole left by Harvey Dent's absence? (Well, they could, of course, bring the character back - but that would just be stupid.) How can BATMAN BEGINS 3 match the colossal box office of TDK? It's guaranteed to look like a flop by comparison even if it's a giant hit (which it obviously will be).

I still find the plot and action rather hard to follow in places - don't ask me, for instance, what all that stuff about sonar was about. Also, the ferry sequence isn't all it could have been, but I guess we've debated this one to death. I did, however, appreciate how nicely shot it is. Gary Oldman appears to be acting in a different flick to everyone else.

A couple of terrific visuals that jumped out at me this time round: Bruce Wayne leaving the fundraising party to stare at the skyline in contemplation, a shot that echoes De Niro gazing at the ocean in HEAT. Also, the Joker hanging upside down and pontificating - extraordinary stuff. Can't really describe it, but if you've seen the film you'll probably know what I mean.

I still maintain that the first half is superior, but then that first half is so fresh and so riveting as to be practically untoppable. Like CASINO ROYALE, TDK is in many ways a truly astonishing achievement: ancient, bewhiskered popcorn trash material raised to the level of rich cinematic haute cuisine. At its best, TDK represents, I'm sure, some of the most extraordinarily skilled filmmaking on the planet. However, I still find CR a less flawed and more satisfying piece of work.

[Judo chop]

Hmmm... a total conversion to the light?

Interesting...

[Loomis]

Hmmm... a total conversion to the light?

Well, no, not total. After all, I'm only giving it 8.5.

For now.

[[dark]]

Hmmm... a total conversion to the light?

Well, no, not total. After all, I'm only giving it 8.5.

For now.

Out of interest, Loomis, what do you give Casino Royale? (And, er, why not - The Man with the Golden Gun?)

Excellent second thoughts on The Dark Knight, by the way - it's terrific to see such a well-made film achieve such commercial heights. Almost makes up for the fact Meet The Spartans topped the box office earlier this year. Almost.

[Loomis]

Out of interest, Loomis, what do you give Casino Royale? (And, er, why not - The Man with the Golden Gun?)

Well, for me CASINO ROYALE is the best of the Bond films, whereas GOLDEN GUN is my favourite. As my fave, GOLDEN GUN gets 10 out of 10, and so does CR, but CR earns that 10 out of pure quality. GOLDEN GUN gets a 10 just by dint of being, uh, my favourite. If I were trying to be objective about GOLDEN GUN, I'd probably have to give it 7 or thereabouts.

[[dark]]

Out of interest, Loomis, what do you give Casino Royale? (And, er, why not - The Man with the Golden Gun?)

Well, for me CASINO ROYALE is the best of the Bond films, whereas GOLDEN GUN is my favourite. As my fave, GOLDEN GUN gets 10 out of 10, and so does CR, but CR earns that 10 out of pure quality. GOLDEN GUN gets a 10 just by dint of being, uh, my favourite. If I were trying to be objective about GOLDEN GUN, I'd probably have to give it 7 or thereabouts.

Thanks, Loomis - I, too, differentiate between "the best" and "my favourite" when asked about the Bond films (or did, until Casino Royale became both). It's an important distinction.

[marktmurphy]

I've only seen it once, but I agree with everything you say Loomis. It's very well-made, but it also falls apart after the excellently exciting first half and is very much overwrought by the end. There's too much in it by a long way and I'd edit out quite a bit: the Wayne employee subplot together with the hospital business and lambo sequence (it's all there just for the Joker to talk to Harvey which could be done much easier); Gordon's fake death (is the whole mayor parade really needed? Not sure); the copycat Batmen; the whole sonar thing (which seemed to exist only to give Morgan a chance to be indignant about something and to make the last action scene incredibly hard to follow), any one of the Joker's clever schemes which surprise everyone; plus lots of the other perils and little scenes which cluttered it up towards the end...

The first half or so is a brilliant thriller, and I think I'll enjoy it more after the second watch too: mostly because it was so damned long the first time and the plot didn't actually seem to be building to climax (it's a rather episodic film) so I found it hard to judge how much longer I'd have to be sitting in that damned seat for: which makes for a less pleasant experience. Now I now what's coming I think it'll be easier to enjoy.
It's excellent filmmaking, but it's very self-indulgent filmmaking too: when you have enough material for five scripts, it's best to edit that out rather than try and fit it in one film. Good film, but very flawed.


My friend said something which amused me: the Joker's (thankfully) final 'clever scheme' with the boats is very remenicient of Robert Kilroy Silk's gameshow 'Shafted'

[tdalton]

I've only seen it once, but I agree with everything you say Loomis. It's very well-made, but it also falls apart after the excellently exciting first half and is very much overwrought by the end. There's too much in it by a long way and I'd edit out quite a bit: the Wayne employee subplot together with the hospital business and lambo sequence (it's all there just for the Joker to talk to Harvey which could be done much easier); Gordon's fake death (is the whole mayor parade really needed? Not sure); the copycat Batmen; the whole sonar thing (which seemed to exist only to give Morgan a chance to be indignant about something and to make the last action scene incredibly hard to follow), any one of the Joker's clever schemes which surprise everyone; plus lots of the other perils and little scenes which cluttered it up towards the end...

The first half or so is a brilliant thriller, and I think I'll enjoy it more after the second watch too: mostly because it was so damned long the first time and the plot didn't actually seem to be building to climax (it's a rather episodic film) so I found it hard to judge how much longer I'd have to be sitting in that damned seat for: which makes for a less pleasant experience. Now I now what's coming I think it'll be easier to enjoy.
It's excellent filmmaking, but it's very self-indulgent filmmaking too: when you have enough material for five scripts, it's best to edit that out rather than try and fit it in one film. Good film, but very flawed.


My friend said something which amused me: the Joker's (thankfully) final 'clever scheme' with the boats is very remenicient of Robert Kilroy Silk's gameshow 'Shafted'

I agree with virtually everything that is said here. I thought that The Dark Knight was a rather well made film, and it would have been a very, very good film had they ended it at around the 2 hour mark. I felt as though the film could have been much better with a significantly revised ending (including removing the whole sonar sequence and the mini-subplot that it's given, as well as removing, as you said, the subplot with the Wayne employee knowing who Batman was). The main problem that I had with the ending, however, was just where it left each character moving into the third film.

[Judo chop]

Thanks, Loomis - I, too, differentiate between "the best" and "my favourite" when asked about the Bond films (or did, until Casino Royale became both). It's an important distinction.

Exactly! Take Loomis himself, for example. Loomis is, arguably, 'the best' poster on the boards, but by no means is he...


um...

[Publius]

There's too much in it by a long way and I'd edit out quite a bit: the Wayne employee subplot together with the hospital business and lambo sequence (it's all there just for the Joker to talk to Harvey which could be done much easier); Gordon's fake death (is the whole mayor parade really needed? Not sure); the copycat Batmen; the whole sonar thing (which seemed to exist only to give Morgan a chance to be indignant about something and to make the last action scene incredibly hard to follow), any one of the Joker's clever schemes which surprise everyone; plus lots of the other perils and little scenes which cluttered it up towards the end...

Go figure. I loved the part where Joker makes Gotham choose between killing Mr. Reese and a random hospital being blown up. It was yet another step in making the Joker more of a terrorist warlord in control of Gotham than the mere loon the filmmakers could have lazily made him. That increasing realization of just how twisted the Joker really is and a palpable sense of escalating stakes are why I generally found the second half better and more compelling.

[Safari Suit]

When examining the ending, it can seem rather trite in that

Spoiler

I don't believe for a second that the morale of the city would collapse based on the actions of one politician, no matter how beloved

but it worked for me while watching the film, and for a while whenever I considered it afterwards, and that's all that matters to me.

[marktmurphy]

When examining the ending, it can seem rather trite in that

Spoiler

I don't believe for a second that the morale of the city would collapse based on the actions of one politician, no matter how beloved

but it worked for me while watching the film, and for a while whenever I considered it afterwards, and that's all that matters to me.

Well there we go: perhaps the film's just about the main characters acting superior and underestimating the public: the Joker thinks the people on the boat will kill each other, and Batman doesn't respect them enough to think they'll be able to handle a bloke going mad when his girlfriend gets murdered (although apparently it was alright for him to do it when his parents got killed).

Although of course the whole Lamborghini bit actually undermines Batman's victory over the Joker at the end: he says that the people are good and won't kill each other, but we've already seen more than one person willing to kill the Wayne employee plus a number of cops just because the Joker tells them to: by repeating every point over and over again the film spoils its own ending.

[Loomis]

There's too much in it by a long way and I'd edit out quite a bit: the Wayne employee subplot together with the hospital business and lambo sequence (it's all there just for the Joker to talk to Harvey which could be done much easier); Gordon's fake death (is the whole mayor parade really needed? Not sure); the copycat Batmen; the whole sonar thing (which seemed to exist only to give Morgan a chance to be indignant about something and to make the last action scene incredibly hard to follow), any one of the Joker's clever schemes which surprise everyone; plus lots of the other perils and little scenes which cluttered it up towards the end...

My gripe isn't that the film is bloated with stuff, as such, because I enjoy all the things you mention (apart from the sonar thing, which loses me completely) - it's that the narrative is just plain confusing in places as the film attempts to juggle all the balls.

As an armchair film fixer, I'd guess that THE DARK KNIGHT could have used another script polish and better editing. When I say better editing, I don't necessarily mean being more ruthless in leaving scenes and subplots on the cutting room floor, but being more fluent and clear in telling the story in a way comprehensible to dumbos like yours truly.

I'm in two minds about all the "filler" stuff in TDK - on the one hand, I love the idea of a film that's Stuffed To The Gills™ with characters and incident. Makes it seem more of an epic, and better value for money, and so on. On the other hand, it does make TDK a bumpy and sometimes baffling ride.

Take the Hong Kong sequence: I love the shooting of the cityscapes and the whole location (wish it could have been explored more, though), as well as the chance to see Bruce Wayne doing some Bond-style spying, with Fox as his Q in the field a la LTK (although don't ask me what all that business with mobile phones was about).

However, it's a sequence that could have easily been dropped or streamlined, for it adds little to the story.

When examining the ending, it can seem rather trite in that

Spoiler

I don't believe for a second that the morale of the city would collapse based on the actions of one politician, no matter how beloved

but it worked for me while watching the film, and for a while whenever I considered it afterwards, and that's all that matters to me.

Well there we go: perhaps the film's just about the main characters acting superior and underestimating the public: the Joker thinks the people on the boat will kill each other, and Batman doesn't respect them enough to think they'll be able to handle a bloke going mad when his girlfriend gets murdered (although apparently it was alright for him to do it when his parents got killed).

Although of course the whole Lamborghini bit actually undermines Batman's victory over the Joker at the end: he says that the people are good and won't kill each other, but we've already seen more than one person willing to kill the Wayne employee plus a number of cops just because the Joker tells them to: by repeating every point over and over again the film spoils its own ending.

Exactly.

What I will say in TDK's favour is that I haven't seen a film in many, many years that's such good value as a big screen experience.

[Eddie Burns]

Good film but overrated....waaaaaaaay overrated. If Ledger was alive I doubt it would have garnered the publicity that it got. Its a very grounded Superhero movie, with fairly dull action scenes (Nolan doesn't do action that well does he?) and fairly predictable. Nothing really shocks you in this film.

As for cultural impact...please, even though its doing well in Europe, it really isn't as greatly regarded over here as it is in the US.

I do believe, in a few years, people will look back and just ask themselves....'What was the hype about?'

[Harmsway]

Although of course the whole Lamborghini bit actually undermines Batman's victory over the Joker at the end: he says that the people are good and won't kill each other, but we've already seen more than one person willing to kill the Wayne employee plus a number of cops just because the Joker tells them to: by repeating every point over and over again the film spoils its own ending.

I don't see it. Yeah, Gotham's full of people, and people are bad and good. Even the people on the boats aren't particularly decent human beings. But what Batman's fighting for is that human beings have the capacity for good, the capacity to be inspired to higher moral ground. And I think he successfully wins that battle, regardless of what's happened before.

[HildebrandRarity]

So I finally saw TDK in IMAX today.

It was my third and final BIG screen viewing of this Batman film...my farewell to our cinematic friend, Heath Ledger.

It was a feast for the eyes (and ears) sitting in the IMAX setting. The panoramic city-scapes and location establishing shots were, at times, spine-tingling. And the clearity was mesmerizing. For the first time, for example, I could actually see Batman's Vocal Modulation ™ device on his throat.

The movie remains at an 8.75 from 10. The issues I had earlier remain and it is longer than it should be. That chase sequence is enhanced because it is entirely in IMAX. The sonar action que at the Ferries At Midnight ™ remains something which could have been heavily reworked or edited down.

Still, good value for money. And writing and performances that provide a degree of emotional connection, helped by the score.

[marktmurphy]

What I will say in TDK's favour is that I haven't seen a film in many, many years that's such good value as a big screen experience.

It's certainly long, yes

[HildebrandRarity]

I do believe, in a few years, people will look back and just ask themselves....'What was the hype about?'

You don't need years. A few days would have told you the 'hype' was about Heath Ledger and a 'posthumus Academy award nom'.

[Mister E]

I don't think so. Whether its a reason for the film's success is a matter for debate but the parallels between the plot and what's happening in the world are pretty clear.

I think peoplen were willing to see darker interpratation of Batman because of the times were in now. I agree that this couldn't have been done before 9/11 but TDK really didn't need to be labeled as some parallel to that day. Really, people are giving far too much credit to this film.

Edited by Mister E, 25 August 2008 - 03:09 PM.

[Harmsway]

I don't think so. Whether its a reason for the film's success is a matter for debate but the parallels between the plot and what's happening in the world are pretty clear.

I think peoplen were willing to see darker interpratation of Batman because of the times were in now. I agree that this couldn't have been done before 9/11 but TDK really didn't need to be labeled as some parallel to that day. Really, people are giving far too much credit to this film.

I don't think so, given that Nolan stated that they were conscious of and intentional about the 9/11 parallels.

[Mister E]

I don't think so. Whether its a reason for the film's success is a matter for debate but the parallels between the plot and what's happening in the world are pretty clear.

I think peoplen were willing to see darker interpratation of Batman because of the times were in now. I agree that this couldn't have been done before 9/11 but TDK really didn't need to be labeled as some parallel to that day. Really, people are giving far too much credit to this film.

I don't think so, given that Nolan stated that they were conscious of and intentional about the 9/11 parallels.

Well I didn't find them as compelling.

[sharpshooter]

I found this, I'm sure it is seen in the soundtrack sleeve. Here it is enlarged.

Attached Files

•  hahahabatman.jpg   623.17KB   49 downloads