146 replies to this topic

[001carus]

I witnessed The Dark Knight at the IMAX a few days ago, and I personally thought it was brilliant - but there were a few glaring problems. I thought it was on par with Batman Begins (which I personally loved), but there were a few things TDK did better, and a few things BB did better.

BB had a far more controlled focus on its hero - Batman. This was a clear story of how he as a human with ideas that he believed could never be reached, were eventually wrought out as he became the Knight we all fear. I thought this movie was truly epic and told beautifully, and there was never too much going on.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, while crafted incredibly - its characters were all immensely interesting, but it fell flat in one section, and that was - Batman. For a movie named after the hero it lacked so much of him it was ridiculous. This was my largest gripe with the film (as well as, despite popular opinion, Maggie Gyllenhaal being a far less interesting Rachel than Katie Holmes, IMO), but apart from this, I thought the movie was excellent.

Before I saw TDK, I had a niggling idea in my head that TDK would be a much more solid movie than QoS, and while after seeing it, even though my expectations were certainly met, and in some ways, surpassed, I think if QoS sticks to exactly the direction it's going, it will have a number of pros over TDK - namely, its main character being the hero of the story. Let's hope I'm right.

[00Twelve]

Just seeing this thread...yes, I'm thinking that QOS will unfortunately be compared to TDK strictly because it's the Reboot Second Chapter. I wish it weren't so, because QOS shouldn't have that type of pressure put upon it. Two completely different characters, even two completely different sub-genres of movies. I can't help thinking that there are going to be those annoying folks that come out of QOS and immediately say "Well, it wasn't as good as Dark Knight, yada yada yada," but it's apples and oranges. TDK was brilliant, but I believe QOS will hold its own and will be quite brilliant in its own right. The fact that TDK is so good shouldn't cause expectations for QOS to drop.

My two cents.

[001carus]

Just seeing this thread...yes, I'm thinking that QOS will unfortunately be compared to TDK strictly because it's the Reboot Second Chapter. I wish it weren't so, because QOS shouldn't have that type of pressure put upon it. Two completely different characters, even two completely different sub-genres of movies. I can't help thinking that there are going to be those annoying folks that come out of QOS and immediately say "Well, it wasn't as good as Dark Knight, yada yada yada," but it's apples and oranges. TDK was brilliant, but I believe QOS will hold its own and will be quite brilliant in its own right. The fact that TDK is so good shouldn't cause expectations for QOS to drop.

My two cents.

Very true. I agree, but if they were to go head to head, I think QoS is certainly fit to be a better movie. Casino Royale is usually considered to be a better film than BB after all. But certainly, QOS does not need to be compared to The Dark Knight, but maybe it's the thinking that Quantum of Solace is one of the only movies that is capable of topping The Dark Knight this year that it is held in such a light.

[00Twelve]

It probably doesn't help that the QOS teaser is running on prints of TDK.

[stamper]

001carus I agree, DK lacks it's title hero. Bale is probably 30 mn on screen as an actor, and I'm being generous. QOS, assuming it's not wall to wall action, will make it look dud.

[Ace Roberts]

OK - now I can discuss intelligently what I created the thread for - after seeing the film last night.

I've read all the comments on here - again it would not surprise me to find out a good majority of us are politicians - the way many are so obviously biased. And I can see where someone with a biased opinion would argue that Christian Bale is only on the screen for 30 minutes - but that is wrong by the way. What happens is Nolan does such a good job of balancing the film with action, characters, and substance - plus Ledger's Oscar worthy performance is so overpowering that it dominates - that someone who doesn't have a trained eye for good cinema would naturally mistake this.

The Dark Knight is brilliant - there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. Nolan does such a masterful job of weaving the story that it unfolds like an expertly crafted piece of machinery that was designed and manufactured by a Swiss craftsman. Each piece of the puzzle unfolds in the timeframe and manner necessary for the individual scene - from the chaotic bank heist at the beginning that is fast-paced, energetic and sets the tone for the Joker character - to the nobel, emotional and eventually tragic slow peeling apart of the character of Harvey Dent. The creative process of combing some of the best action sequences I've seen on film with the character study of the Joker & Batman is brilliant - add to it Zimmer's & Newton's outstanding soundtrack and you have one of the best films I've seen in years.

So - my only concern now with QoS, after seeing Dark Knight, is the reported running time. What made Dark Knight succeed (and Casino Royale in my opinion) was the approx. 2 hr 30 minute running time that allowed this successful blend of action and drama. Forster is going to have - in my opinion - a challenge to pull off a film as well balanced as Dark Knight at 2 hrs or less. I'm not saying he can't do it - but it's going to be a challenge.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The audience response to the QOS trailor before TDK was tepid at best. Maybe they've seen it too many times online and it was near the end of the rotation...but no "yeah!"s.

[Emma]

BB had a far more controlled focus on its hero - Batman. This was a clear story of how he as a human with ideas that he believed could never be reached, were eventually wrought out as he became the Knight we all fear. I thought this movie was truly epic and told beautifully, and there was never too much going on.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, while crafted incredibly - its characters were all immensely interesting, but it fell flat in one section, and that was - Batman. For a movie named after the hero it lacked so much of him it was ridiculous. This was my largest gripe with the film (as well as, despite popular opinion, Maggie Gyllenhaal being a far less interesting Rachel than Katie Holmes, IMO), but apart from this, I thought the movie was excellent.

Before I saw TDK, I had a niggling idea in my head that TDK would be a much more solid movie than QoS, and while after seeing it, even though my expectations were certainly met, and in some ways, surpassed, I think if QoS sticks to exactly the direction it's going, it will have a number of pros over TDK - namely, its main character being the hero of the story. Let's hope I'm right.

Friend, you nailed it so beautifull!

My biggest beef with TDK was the lack of focus on Batman/Bruce Wayne. And unfortunetly I wasn't impressed with Ledger as the Joker. After 10 minutes, I just found him to be tiresome and annyoing. He did not frighten me whatsoever.

Personally...and I say this as a huge Batman fan. I felt cheated. I waited 3 years to see this film. And what do I get? Your quintessential tv show about a cop and lawyer taking down a psycho path. And hardly anything having to do with the hero. I feel so sorry for Christian Bale having to do publicity junkets, trying to sell this film when it's not his.

Frankly I don't see how Bond fans or a general audience would put up with the same treatment for Bond. I just can't.

[Captain Tightpants]

Quantum of Solace is going to have to be something incredible to match The Dark Knight blow for blow, and while it certainly looks good, I don't think there's any competition.

[Ytadel]

I don't understand why there's considered to be some sort of "competition" here. I love Bond movies, I own all 21 on DVD and have seen them all at least 4 or 5 times each, some of my favorites well over a dozen times. But that doesn't mean I have to hate non-Bond movies or root for non-Bond movies to crash and burn; life would be pretty bland if there were just 21 movies I was allowed to like and that was it. Personally I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (although I do not like any of the old Burton Batman movies, let alone the Schumacher ones).

I like Bond movies, I also like Batman movies, and Die Hard movies, and Bourne movies, and Pixar movies, and Star Wars movies, and Lord of the Rings movies, and Spider-Man movies, and Indiana Jones movies, and Back to the Future movies, and Terminator movies, and so on and so forth. Hating anything non-Bond would be awful. What's with the bizarre sense of competition?

And for the record, while I am strongly looking forward to Quantum of Solace, plan to see it at the midnight premiere, and will no doubt see it again after that and buy it on DVD, there is no way it can trump The Dark Knight at the box office, it's simply impossible.

[__7]

The Dark Knight is brilliant - there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. Nolan does such a masterful job of weaving the story that it unfolds like an expertly crafted piece of machinery that was designed and manufactured by a Swiss craftsman. Each piece of the puzzle unfolds in the timeframe and manner necessary for the individual scene - from the chaotic bank heist at the beginning that is fast-paced, energetic and sets the tone for the Joker character - to the nobel, emotional and eventually tragic slow peeling apart of the character of Harvey Dent. The creative process of combing some of the best action sequences I've seen on film with the character study of the Joker & Batman is brilliant - add to it Zimmer's & Newton's outstanding soundtrack and you have one of the best films I've seen in years.

Can't say it better than this. I saw TDK yesterday. The great thing about this film is that it is not a superhero film. It is a brilliant crime drama which happens to have a superhero in it. Masterfully executed. I just hope the new X-Files film isn't going to be hurt next weekend by the success of TDK.

My biggest beef with TDK was the lack of focus on Batman/Bruce Wayne. And unfortunetly I wasn't impressed with Ledger as the Joker. After 10 minutes, I just found him to be tiresome and annyoing. He did not frighten me whatsoever.

Personally...and I say this as a huge Batman fan. I felt cheated. I waited 3 years to see this film. And what do I get? Your quintessential tv show about a cop and lawyer taking down a psycho path. And hardly anything having to do with the hero. I feel so sorry for Christian Bale having to do publicity junkets, trying to sell this film when it's not his.

Surely you jest.

Edited by __7, 21 July 2008 - 04:17 AM.

[Emma]

The Dark Knight is brilliant - there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. Nolan does such a masterful job of weaving the story that it unfolds like an expertly crafted piece of machinery that was designed and manufactured by a Swiss craftsman. Each piece of the puzzle unfolds in the timeframe and manner necessary for the individual scene - from the chaotic bank heist at the beginning that is fast-paced, energetic and sets the tone for the Joker character - to the nobel, emotional and eventually tragic slow peeling apart of the character of Harvey Dent. The creative process of combing some of the best action sequences I've seen on film with the character study of the Joker & Batman is brilliant - add to it Zimmer's & Newton's outstanding soundtrack and you have one of the best films I've seen in years.

Can't say it better than this. I saw TDK yesterday. The great thing about this film is that it is not a superhero film. It is a brilliant crime drama which happens to have a superhero in it. Masterfully executed. I just hope the new X-Files film isn't going to be hurt next weekend by the success of TDK.

My biggest beef with TDK was the lack of focus on Batman/Bruce Wayne. And unfortunetly I wasn't impressed with Ledger as the Joker. After 10 minutes, I just found him to be tiresome and annyoing. He did not frighten me whatsoever.

Personally...and I say this as a huge Batman fan. I felt cheated. I waited 3 years to see this film. And what do I get? Your quintessential tv show about a cop and lawyer taking down a psycho path. And hardly anything having to do with the hero. I feel so sorry for Christian Bale having to do publicity junkets, trying to sell this film when it's not his.

Surely you jest.

Not in the least. I was bored to tears watching it. There was nothing in that film that has not been covered (and done better) in several cop shows. The moral lessons and messages were done in a forced hamfisted way and the film was riddled with trite cliches. Did anyone honestly think that those people on the ferry were going to blow each other up?

I find it ironic, that Batman allowed Ra's to die in Batman Begins. Yet has qualms about killing the Joker in TDK.

The film was a sheer disapointment.

[Harmsway]

The moral lessons and messages were done in a forced hamfisted way and the film was riddled with trite cliches.

You like BEGINS, and BEGINS is a hundred times more guilty of this.

Did anyone honestly think that those people on the ferry were going to blow each other up?

Yes.

I find it ironic, that Batman allowed Ra's to die in Batman Begins. Yet has qualms about killing the Joker in TDK.

Well, even in BEGINS, Batman did draw the distinction between allowing Ra's to die and not taking a life directly ("I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."). Nevermind that killing the Joker would directly destroy Batman's function as a symbol for justice and the restoration of the law, and would also give the Joker exactly what he wanted.

And even if it does violate BEGINS, who cares? Batman allowing Ra's to die was pretty much hypocrisy on his part, and certainly not true to the character in the comics. So if THE DARK KNIGHT acts like that moment didn't happen, it's all for the better, IMO.

[blueman]

Saw it, was never bored but I also never had any fun.

BB was way too emo-boy, TDK fixed that but Bale without the angst is... well, dull. Bring back Keaton IMO.

Also, was anybody else throwing up their hands at the biggest gaff in the film? At the end - after 2+ hours of how Gotham needs a hero/savior/whatever blah blah - two, not one but two boatloads of Gothamites, "good" ones and "bad" ones (hit me over the head one more time with that blatant juxtaposition, just once more, I dare you...) somehow, amazingly without any hero to guide them but just plain people, somehow, somehow... they work through it and make the right decision. The film imploded for me right then when the filmmakers torpedoed their own overly-trumpeted premise, seemingly without realizing it. Apparently, when all hope is lost, Gotham doesn't need a Dark Knight, regular everyday people are perfectly able to make the tough "hero" decisions. Great way to top it off, Nolan. Doofus. It'd be like at the end of CR, Bond offs himself out of despair, something dorky and utterly antithetical to what the previous 2 hours had been (in the case of TDK at least) beating me over the head about. Criminy.

Nolan may know a lot of things, but his last two films prove beyond any doubt, he don't know squat about Batman (and after that baffling ending to TDK, it's tempting to add basic storytelling, too). He makes nice little scenes, but without a Ledger filling them out they don't amount to anything.

IMHO, Nolan's two Batman films are betrayals. Oh well, there's always Ironman.

Edited by blueman, 25 July 2008 - 08:24 AM.

[Harmsway]

Apparently, when all hope is lost, Gotham doesn't need a Dark Knight, regular everyday people are perfectly able to make the tough "hero" decisions.

Sure, but that doesn't make the greater symbols unnecessary. Batman's always been about helping to cultivate the good that was already there (in BEGINS, he wants to show "the good people of Gotham" that they don't have to be afraid), to give a symbol that they can believe in so they can have greater faith in themselves. That moment validated Batman's existence, not denied its necessity, because it showed that there was some good worth fighting for.

IMHO, Nolan's two Batman films are betrayals.

Of what? They're quite faithful to the last thirty years of Batman comics.

[DR76]

Also, was anybody else throwing up their hands at the biggest gaff in the film? At the end - after 2+ hours of how Gotham needs a hero/savior/whatever blah blah - two, not one but two boatloads of Gothamites, "good" ones and "bad" ones (hit me over the head one more time with that blatant juxtaposition, just once more, I dare you...) somehow, amazingly without any hero to guide them but just plain people, somehow, somehow... they work through it and make the right decision.

And I found this so unbelievable and contrived. It seemed as if Nolan teased us with the possibility of seeing the darker side of the average citizen . . . and wimped out, because he would rather stroke the ego of his moviegoers with some "nobility of man" BS, instead of telling the truth about human nature. Very disappointing. It would have been more interesting or darker if Batman had prevented them from blowing up at the last minute. Batman would have saved the people, but the Joker would have proven a point.

Edited by DR76, 25 July 2008 - 03:37 PM.

[Harmsway]

And I found this so unbelievable and contrived. It seemed as if Nolan teased us with the possibility of seeing the darker side of the average citizen . . . and wimped out, because he would rather stroke the ego of his moviegoers with some "nobility of man" BS, instead of telling the truth about human nature.

Given the rest of THE DARK KNIGHT's portrayal of the average citizen, I wouldn't say that Nolan's intending to be unrealistic here. He wasn't afraid to show the average citizen as very willing to kill Mr. Reese to save their loved ones in the hospital, for example. And it's not like the folks on the boats came off that well, either. It was made abundantly clear if many of them didn't have the pressure of others or the pressure of guilt, many wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger or rationalize their own safety.

I mean, the Joker's not 100% right. Sure, he's mostly right. Human beings aren't good people. But to say that there's nothing good about 'em, that's stretching it a bit. The boat scene was about leaving a sliver of hope, that human beings do have the capacity to do good things. And that's not entirely unrealistic.

It would have been more interesting or darker if Batman had prevented them from blowing up at the last minute. Batman would have saved the people, but the Joker would have proven a point.

And if the Joker proves his point, Batman's pointless, because he's fighting to save a worthless people. Unless human beings do have some capacity for good, even when the "chips are down," Batman's crusade is a sham.

[BoogieBond]

Having just seen The Dark Knight, I think it was a very good and polished film, and I agree, while the action was spectacular in some places(Hong Kong Scenes, Scenes in the Tunnel where Dent's truck is chased) there is a fair amount of time devoted to Plot and Characters. It definitely had a good mix of action and drama, and the story moved swiftly, without tons of mindless explosions etc.
Hope Qos moves in much the same direction and has the same mix of the spectacular and a "Core" of plot characters and theme. It does look like it so far. Hope so
Also, Lucius is basically Batman's "Q". The "Toys" he provides are realistic and relevant. They have possibly "Lifted" these from the Bond films, and some of these and their uses are used to very entertaining effect. Perhaps Bond can use one or two in Bond 23.

[blueman]

Apparently, when all hope is lost, Gotham doesn't need a Dark Knight, regular everyday people are perfectly able to make the tough "hero" decisions.

Sure, but that doesn't make the greater symbols unnecessary. Batman's always been about helping to cultivate the good that was already there (in BEGINS, he wants to show "the good people of Gotham" that they don't have to be afraid), to give a symbol that they can believe in so they can have greater faith in themselves. That moment validated Batman's existence, not denied its necessity, because it showed that there was some good worth fighting for.

If you say so (although I think your read on it isn't validated by any action in the film, and scant little dialogue). I thought it piss-poor storytelling of the high school kind.

IMHO, Nolan's two Batman films are betrayals.

Of what? They're quite faithful to the last thirty years of Batman comics.

The last 30 years of Batman comics have much better stories and much better-told stories than Nolan's crappy, crappy efforts. IMO. Just cuz you want them to be "good" doesn't mean they are: over-dramatized, a thinly portrayed Wayne/Batman, mirthless except for the bad guys going off, and hardly ever does the World's Greatest Detective strut his brain power. Not Batman, not even close. Duckman maybe, or Frogman.

[Harmsway]

If you say so (although I think your read on it isn't validated by any action in the film, and scant little dialogue).

Batman's conversation with the Joker during the same scene validates my interpretation, as does his conversation with Gordon towards the end. Nevermind the countless discussions about the significance of a hero and Harvey Dent as a public symbol. So I don't think I'm making up anything that wasn't already there.

Just cuz you want them to be "good" doesn't mean they are

Nothing like implying that the folks who like something merely appreciate it because they're deluding themselves.

[blueman]

What's wrong with liking something bad? I like "Zardoz" and it totally blows.

And I guess I missed Nolan's point in all the "countless" repetitions of it...

[Harmsway]

What's wrong with liking something bad?

Nothing. I like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, and it's outright terrible.

The issue is claiming that something is bad, and therefore anyone who thinks it's actually good is just deluding themselves into thinking as much. That's more than a bit arrogant and condescending, don't you think?

[smartz]

I just came back from an Imax viewing of TDK, which in the UK is a rarity since i think there are only about 4 screens.

I loved the original Batman movies of Burton and think that they've got a real visual appeal that Burton has struggled to really replicate elsewhere....anyway after Bond i have to say my second favorite was always Batman.

I was a fan of Nolans prior to BB and he is a real mastercraftsman of film and stories. I loved BB and was sold on the reboot. So....how was TDK....in a word-epic.

The films looks like it cost several hundreds of millions and is a taught monolith of a movie. The film really is epic and from the opening Imax shot of the gotham cityscape and following bank heist scene you get dragged along. From the feeling of tension on the streets of Gotham to the constantly torn Bale, i found the film nigh on perfect. Yes for me the portrayal of the Joker was at the most very good and not really the excellence that some of the buzz had maintained.

Instead for me the one stand out performance was that of Eckhart. There were times when i really felt his drive and passion to fix the corruption in Gotham, that when it all falls apart, it seems all that more heart breaking. The facial CGI of his burnt face is also one of the most impressive effects i've seen since T2 and was amazing to see in motion. It was very true to the comic depiction of Two-Face that i read as a child and very chilling yet compelling to watch.

I'd say this film will easily be a massive box office success and record breaker and here comes my concern...I fear that the mass cinema going public will have had their expectation seriously raised by TDK.

There was a real momentum throughout the filming of TDK which was matched by the excellent viral marketing. QOS doesn't have that and the trailer has problems. I think its middling to average and seems to try and play to the very same audience on a far more basic action movie premise. It also feels a bit unintelligent and unoriginal. Now I don't doubt that QOS will be fantastic but they need a more cohesive second trailer quick and something that seems to hint at a depth of story not a a hodge potch of repetitious set pieces.

I love my Bond films but TDK really has set the bar high for 2008! Hopefully the second QOS trailer will give us more of the story which right now seems absent.

Edited by smartz, 25 July 2008 - 08:42 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

OK - now I can discuss intelligently what I created the thread for - after seeing the film last night.

So - my only concern now with QoS, after seeing Dark Knight, is the reported running time. What made Dark Knight succeed (and Casino Royale in my opinion) was the approx. 2 hr 30 minute running time that allowed this successful blend of action and drama. Forster is going to have - in my opinion - a challenge to pull off a film as well balanced as Dark Knight at 2 hrs or less. I'm not saying he can't do it - but it's going to be a challenge.

So, you can comment without actually seeing Quantum Of Solace...now that's a neat trick!

So there's never been a movie made with a 2h run time were the combination of action and drama were really well balanced?

I'm hoping Quantum Of Solace will actually trump The Dark Knight by avoiding a cliche'd and a slightly soggy, even preachy final act.

We all have our opinions and if you want to compare James Bond to Batman then, in my opinion, Casino Royale trumps The Dark Knight. Here's hoping QOS trumps CR.

[Loomis]

The films looks like it cost several hundreds of millions and is a taught monolith of a movie. The film really is epic and from the opening Imax shot of the gotham cityscape and following bank heist scene you get dragged along.

Unless I'm overlooking something, THE DARK KNIGHT must be the most lavish and reverential treatment of comic book material in the history of film.

I don't love TDK, indeed I have a lot of criticisms of it. Even at its best it's a flick I admire more than like.... but it is undeniably something that must be seen, and seen on the big screen. Can't wait to check out THE IMAX EXPERIENCE.

[Loomis]

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, while crafted incredibly - its characters were all immensely interesting, but it fell flat in one section, and that was - Batman. For a movie named after the hero it lacked so much of him it was ridiculous.

I'm reading this criticism a lot, but it's not one of the problems I have with the film, which for my money belongs to the rich and compelling characters of Dent and the Joker and the superb performances of Eckhart and Ledger.

Bale is good, but - to split hairs a little - I could have done with more of Bruce Wayne and even less of Batman. Wayne is an interesting fellow, and Bale shines whenever he's playing him (especially when hamming up the amusing facade of the spoiled playboy - I loved his quip about owning the restaurant). Batman, though, is a dullard, pure and simple.

[Publius]

There was a real momentum throughout the filming of TDK which was matched by the excellent viral marketing. QOS doesn't have that and the trailer has problems.

Well, if you ask me, the main Batman trailer wasn't all that good. Too many explosions, too much of a focus on action without context, too many cliches (Joker crashing the party, which I thought worked well in the actual movie but wouldn't have known it by the trailer). The teaser with the Batman logo disintegrating was phenomenal, on the other hand.

I think the CR teaser was about on par with the QoS one. The only thing that really stood out for me was the B&W sequence. Maybe the crane jump and the knife fight. Meanwhile, QoS has Bond flying the plane and kissing Fields' back. Maybe Mr. White getting under Bond's skin. There were about equal as far as annoying M "dialogue" and random explosions/action without context go. I also find the QoS teaser music better, although I don't like that of either all that much.

Batman, though, is a dullard, pure and simple.

I think that's usually been the case, though, and I honestly prefer it that way. Joker has traditionally oozed a creepy charisma while Batman has been the uptight stiff. The idea that the insane evil guy who's constantly smiling and cracking a joke lures you in and maybe even gets you to like him, while the good guy driven by a desire for order is as boring as he is scary, has always appealed to me. It's a nice way of injecting excitement into the otherwise ho-hum hero vs. villain conflict, making you actually question who you're rooting for. One of the only other times I've seen this done as well is Darth Vader in the Star Wars series.

[blueman]

What's wrong with liking something bad?

Nothing. I like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, and it's outright terrible.

The issue is claiming that something is bad, and therefore anyone who thinks it's actually good is just deluding themselves into thinking as much. That's more than a bit arrogant and condescending, don't you think?

No more than somebody telling me I'm not "getting" it.

It's a bad film, why anybody is geeking about it beyond Ledger's performance escapes me.

[DR76]

I mean, the Joker's not 100% right. Sure, he's mostly right. Human beings aren't good people. But to say that there's nothing good about 'em, that's stretching it a bit. The boat scene was about leaving a sliver of hope, that human beings do have the capacity to do good things. And that's not entirely unrealistic.

The problem is that screenwriters and moviemakers are always giving moviegoers a "sliver of hope". They call themselves pointing out the dark side of humanity and then they pervert their message by allowing these observations come out of the mouths from villains like the Joker, before the latter is eventually proven wrong. It's like a cop out to me. Which is why I found the whole ferry boat sequence something of a joke.

Sure, human beings are capable of doing some good. But in that particular situation? I rather doubt it. If there is one trait that humanity posses is talent for self-preservation. It would have been more realistic to me if the boats had detonated or Batman had prevented this before anyone on one or both of those boats and activated the bombs. Even better, I would have preferred if Nolan had never added that sequence in the first place.

Edited by DR76, 26 July 2008 - 05:10 AM.

[TheREAL008]

QoS shouldn't be compared with TDK at all.

All in all TDK is just a movie, it's not Casablanca or Citizen Kane or even TLTOFC, it's just a Batman sequel and a Bond film shouldn't live up to any standards except of it's own.