Movie The Dark Knight

[likka]

I honeslty preferred Batman Begins, and by a fair margin. Ledger was brilliant, but it just didnt do it for my like BB.... Perhaps I expected too much after all the hype.

Totally agree with you there... take Ledger's brilliant performance out and it was just a slightly above average superhero crime fighting flick. Found Batman's backstory in BB far more engaging personally.

Words cannot describe how good Heath was though. Worth the price of admission alone. In fact Ledger was so good in his role I've yet to meet a person who was not hoping Joker had killed Batman at the end.

 

[oaksy]

If they bring the penguin into the new movies they should rewrite the character. If they use the same type of character as Batman Returns then it will ruin the movie.

i just had an amazing thought! imagine Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin!!

How good would that be???

 

[footylover18]

Daniel Day Lewis as The Riddler

 

[HBK619]

Really?

A perfect 10?

I can see why people would be giving it 10's, now I know that the movie probably wouldn't be worth a perfect 10 in every meaning of the word, but the movie did everything it was meant to do, to almost the perfect extent, therefore I can see why it would be worth a perfect 10, as the reason to why I gave Cloverfield a 10 as well.

 

[scooterb]

It's starting to come down quite a lot on IMDB now.
Expect Shawshank to be on top by the end of next week.

 

[sens]

Because in the final scene where he is hanging upside down, my guess is right after he says the line "Insanity is like gravity, all it needs is a little push" he takes a knife (his favourite weapon) and cuts the wire, plummeting to his death.

The optics of the Joker killing himself after Ledger having killed himself (though it is still unclear if it was suicide or accident) would have been cut from the movie by the studio for sure.

The way the Joker says "push" is just so poingnant that it sounds like something was supposed to happen right after.

Also if you notice, you don't see the Joker again for the rest of the movie after that. You would think that in a movie where he was so central they would have at least cut back to a scene of him in prison or the insane asylum laughing and looking crazy to close out the movie. They didn't do that because they didn't have that shot in the can before Ledger's death because the plan was for the Joker to die....or at least appear to die.

He showed several times in the movie his lack of concern for his own life, giving Two-Face the gun to point at him, etc.

It just doesn't make sense that the entire movie is focused around the Joker and the last you see of him is hanging from a rope 15 minutes before the movie actually ends.

That's my theory anyway, and I doubt Nolan or the studio will ever admit it's true.


But then again, the fact that the Joker says "I suspect we'll be doing this forever!" almostconfirms he wouldn't kill himself.

The movie was done. It had been in the can for a while, and I doubt any major plot points like that were edited.

 

[FootyJunkie]

It's starting to come down quite a lot on IMDB now.
Expect Shawshank to be on top by the end of next week.

Morgan Freeman wouldn't give a toss though

 

[ManWithNoName]

Because in the final scene where he is hanging upside down, my guess is right after he says the line "Insanity is like gravity, all it needs is a little push" he takes a knife (his favourite weapon) and cuts the wire, plummeting to his death.

The optics of the Joker killing himself after Ledger having killed himself (though it is still unclear if it was suicide or accident) would have been cut from the movie by the studio for sure.

The way the Joker says "push" is just so poingnant that it sounds like something was supposed to happen right after.

Also if you notice, you don't see the Joker again for the rest of the movie after that. You would think that in a movie where he was so central they would have at least cut back to a scene of him in prison or the insane asylum laughing and looking crazy to close out the movie. They didn't do that because they didn't have that shot in the can before Ledger's death because the plan was for the Joker to die....or at least appear to die.

He showed several times in the movie his lack of concern for his own life, giving Two-Face the gun to point at him, etc.

It just doesn't make sense that the entire movie is focused around the Joker and the last you see of him is hanging from a rope 15 minutes before the movie actually ends.

That's my theory anyway, and I doubt Nolan or the studio will ever admit it's true.


But then again, the fact that the Joker says "I suspect we'll be doing this forever!" almostconfirms he wouldn't kill himself.

The movie was done. It had been in the can for a while, and I doubt any major plot points like that were edited.

The whole concept behind Batman v Joker is that Batman can never be rid of him because he can't kill him and the Joker wants to keep "playing" with Batman because he finds it fun. What a ridiculous theory.

 

[Shinboner '07]

The optics of the Joker killing himself after Ledger having killed himself (though it is still unclear if it was suicide or accident) would have been cut from the movie by the studio for sure.

lol, what are u talking about, he died of an accidental overdose, everyone knows that

 

[fairdinkum]

OVER-RATED.

Allow me to explain to you all why this isn't a great film:

*It had an underlying theme of 'authoritarian government good, and 'war on terrorism' good'. For more insight into this, see the thread that I will soon post in the Society, Religion and Politics section of this site.

*It was way too long. One of the arts of film-making is telling your story in an acceptable time-frame. Indeed, editing out parts of the film that aren't necessary to the plot (or not even scripting them in the first place) is one of the hardest parts of putting a film together. On this front, the film failed.

*Some parts of the story didn't actually make sense. The ending in particular was rather odd.

Spoiler

Why couldn't they have lied and said that somebody else killed the cops? Surely telling the people that their one true hero, Batman, was responsible was just as detrimental as it would have been had they said that it was the DA? I've heard the response 'Oh yeah, they wanted people to no longer see Batman as a hero', but why? Wouldn't that make them feel safer? And I've heard 'they wanted people to know that Batman would kill villains', but doesn't this go against Batman's principles, and lead people to question his greatness?

*They completely threw the whole concept of 'Gotham City' out the window. I can't believe that any Batman enthusiast would be pleased by this film, given just how little respect it gave to the entire concept of Batman fighting for good in a gothic city. I'm no Batman enthusiast myself, but this was one of the most interesting aspects of previous Batman stuff I had seen - Gotham City: the dark, cold, dreary, urban decaying crime-ridden baddie-fest. Not anymore. The new 'Gotham City' is now much like a drive through Melbourne.

*Some of the characters/relationships weren't developed very well at all.

Spoiler

A great, gung-ho cop being turned evil by a few words whilst in hospital? What would have made more sense would have been if they had set it up so that Batman knew Rachel was over him, and Dent figured that the reason why Batman saved him instead of her was because he couldn't stand living knowing that Rachel no longer loved him. This would have given Dent good reason to want to kill Batman, too - which would have paved the way for him to return in a later film (which I expected him to do anyway, until I looked at my watch and groaned 'Oh no, they're gonna drag this out'). And the relationship between Dent and Rachel wasn't developed as well as it might have been, either.

In saying this, I thought that the actors were good with what they had to work with. Ledger was good (although I thought his character could have been written better), and Bale, Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were also very good. I saw the film at IMAX, and this helped to accentuate what were some very good shots and scenes.

Overall, I gave the film a 2.5 stars, although this is largely due to my personal hatred of the underlying tones of the film. If I were to imagine the film without these messages, I would probably rate it a three or even three and a half, although it is very hard to speculate on this, since the messages a film conveys are supposed to be central to the entire makeup of the film.

[Note: I posted this same post in Lidge's Lounge on the North Melbourne board. Don't go accusing me of plagiarising myself]

 

[NitroFan]

Morgan Freeman wouldn't give a toss though

Why would anyone give a toss? I know you're not being serious, but these people that take rankings on sites like IMDB so personally really piss me off.

 

[HBK619]

*It had an underlying theme of 'authoritarian government good, and 'war on terrorism' good'. For more insight into this, see the thread that I will soon post in the Society, Religion and Politics section of this site.

MMMMMK.

IT WAS A ****EN SUPERHERO MOVIE!

Underlying themes, christ, this isn't Schindler's List, first and foremost the movie is there to entertain, not to send some sort of political message.

*It was way too long. One of the arts of film-making is telling your story in an acceptable time-frame. Indeed, editing out parts of the film that aren't necessary to the plot (or not even scripting them in the first place) is one of the hardest parts of putting a film together. On this front, the film failed.

SOOOOOO, The Godfather 1 and 2 are overated then?

The Godfather is close to 3 hours long and The Godfather 2 is 3 hours 20 minutes long.

Not to mention, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemtion, Schindler's List all run for approx. 2 hours and 30 minutes.

HONESTLY THAT IS A SHIT ARGUMENT.

*Some parts of the story didn't actually make sense. The ending in particular was rather odd.

Spoiler

Why couldn't they have lied and said that somebody else killed the cops? Surely telling the people that their one true hero, Batman, was responsible was just as detrimental as it would have been had they said that it was the DA? I've heard the response 'Oh yeah, they wanted people to no longer see Batman as a hero', but why? Wouldn't that make them feel safer? And I've heard 'they wanted people to know that Batman would kill villains', but doesn't this go against Batman's principles, and lead people to question his greatness?

Now amazingly, and stay with me here, maybe just maybe, the ending to The Dark Knight was making it so that there was something to go on for the 3rd movie, I dunno, it might just be me, but that is the way I see it, that strange as it is a movie actually drew out a storyline previous to a sequel being made.

*They completely threw the whole concept of 'Gotham City' out the window. I can't believe that any Batman enthusiast would be pleased by this film, given just how little respect it gave to the entire concept of Batman fighting for good in a gothic city. I'm no Batman enthusiast myself, but this was one of the most interesting aspects of previous Batman stuff I had seen - Gotham City: the dark, cold, dreary, urban decaying crime-ridden baddie-fest. Not anymore. The new 'Gotham City' is now much like a drive through Melbourne.

Didn't see Batman Begins? You see and once again stay with me on this one, maybe the movie was helped out by having a movie before it.("AHHH NOW I GET IT" he says)

Would it not have been strange to start the Batman series off again through TDK, of course it would have, that is why Batman Begins was there, it was to show us what other parts of the story there are, and if you had any knowledge you would have seen that in the first one.

And for the record, Melbourne is actually seen as a pretty 'Dark' city(Remember the Underworld killings?), that is why there have been numerous film makers wanting to come to Melbourne to shoot.

Honestly my take on your review is that you need to get a crane to pull your head out of your arse, as that is where it must've been while you were watching the movie.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

OVER-RATED.

Allow me to explain to you all why this isn't a great film:

*It had an underlying theme of 'authoritarian government good, and 'war on terrorism' good'. For more insight into this, see the thread that I will soon post in the Society, Religion and Politics section of this site.

I don't see how this is a valid criticism. Any fan of Batman knows he is a total fascist. Always has been, always will be.

Its the same reason why even though he won't kill, he doesn't want the criminals to know that. He uses fear and lies. His strongest trait is his ability to mess with peoples heads.

 

[A Living God]

*Some parts of the story didn't actually make sense. The ending in particular was rather odd.

Spoiler

Why couldn't they have lied and said that somebody else killed the cops? Surely telling the people that their one true hero, Batman, was responsible was just as detrimental as it would have been had they said that it was the DA? I've heard the response 'Oh yeah, they wanted people to no longer see Batman as a hero', but why? Wouldn't that make them feel safer? And I've heard 'they wanted people to know that Batman would kill villains', but doesn't this go against Batman's principles, and lead people to question his greatness?

Spoiler

If Batman wasn't the murderer then who killed Dent? The building was surrounded by cops, it had to be one of Gordon, Gordon’s son or Batman.

 

[pinkus maximus]

saw it last night. had to sit right up front, didn't think it would be still selling out

heath ledger's performance was bordering on genius. so funny when he is walking out of the hospital with the nurse dress on

 

[fairdinkum]

MMMMMK.

IT WAS A ****EN SUPERHERO MOVIE!

Underlying themes, christ, this isn't Schindler's List, first and foremost the movie is there to entertain, not to send some sort of political message.SOOOOOO, The Godfather 1 and 2 are overated then?

And the Star Wars movies were 'just movies'. Doesn't mean that they didn't have underlying political themes.

The Godfather is close to 3 hours long and The Godfather 2 is 3 hours 20 minutes long.

Not to mention, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemtion, Schindler's List all run for approx. 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Did this film need to run for 2.5 hours? I've read many posts in this thread which have agreed that the the two-face character was not necessary, and could have been save for the next film. I've spoken to a few people who thought the film could have and should have finished much earlier than it did.

HONESTLY THAT IS A SHIT ARGUMENT.Now amazingly, and stay with me here, maybe just maybe, the ending to The Dark Knight was making it so that there was something to go on for the 3rd movie, I dunno, it might just be me, but that is the way I see it, that strange as it is a movie actually drew out a storyline previous to a sequel being made.

So we should overlook what are essentially poor endings, simply because they 'set up' sequels? Is that your contention?

Didn't see Batman Begins? You see and once again stay with me on this one, maybe the movie was helped out by having a movie before it.("AHHH NOW I GET IT" he says)

Would it not have been strange to start the Batman series off again through TDK, of course it would have, that is why Batman Begins was there, it was to show us what other parts of the story there are, and if you had any knowledge you would have seen that in the first one.

And for the record, Melbourne is actually seen as a pretty 'Dark' city(Remember the Underworld killings?), that is why there have been numerous film makers wanting to come to Melbourne to shoot.

I did see BB, and from my memory Gotham City wasn't portrayed in that film the way it was in this one. I would suggest that this furthers my argument, not yours. As for Melbourne, my point was that this is no longer a gothic metropolis, but simply a large city like any other. Another point that has gone right over your head.

Honestly my take on your review is that you need to get a crane to pull your head out of your arse, as that is where it must've been while you were watching the movie.

And my take on you is that you need to relax a little, and not take critiques of a film which you obviously love so personally. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be getting so upset about another person's comments about a film on an internet forum. What is it with you Batman/Hollywood fanboys?

 

[fairdinkum]

I don't see how this is a valid criticism. Any fan of Batman knows he is a total fascist. Always has been, always will be.

Its the same reason why even though he won't kill, he doesn't want the criminals to know that. He uses fear and lies. His strongest trait is his ability to mess with peoples heads.

Is this film only aimed at batman fans?
And why, oh why, if it is such common knowledge that he is a 'fascist', had I not read a single post in this thread mentioning this until today?

 

[fairdinkum]

Spoiler

If Batman wasn't the murderer then who killed Dent? The building was surrounded by cops, it had to be one of Gordon, Gordon’s son or Batman.

Spoiler

Why did he have to have been killed? Why couldn't he have fallen to his death accidentally? Why couldn't the injuries he suffered in the fire have finally killed him (via infecton or otherwise)?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Spoiler

Why did he have to have been killed? Why couldn't he have fallen to his death accidentally? Why couldn't the injuries he suffered in the fire have finally killed him (via infecton or otherwise)?

Autopsy would've shown he died from the impact from the fall.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Is this film only aimed at batman fans?
And why, oh why, if it is such common knowledge that he is a 'fascist', had I not read a single post in this thread mentioning this until today?

Because you haven't read the entire thread. It was mentioned a week ago.

The reason I mention this is because you are using the pro-fascism thing as a criticism of the movie, because you seem to be of the belief that this is propaganda. I'm merely pointing out that it is a common and recurring theme of the character, and hence, not some sly attempt to justify fascism.

One of the key aspects of the Joker/Batman relationship is anarchy vs fascism.

Anyway, your point about Dent and blaming the deaths on Batman is flawed too. Quite clearly Batman needs the criminals to think he will kill them. He is whatever Gotham needs him to be (the Dark Knight), and likewise, Dent needs to have been killed by a dangerous criminal, so that he can be cannonised as its White Knight. If he merely died accidentally, the myth and legend of Harvey Dent is diminished.

Batman is not afraid to lie or misrepresent the truth - and in this case it gives Gotham a real hero, with a face (two actually ), and it also gives Gotham a villain to target, Batman.

 

[fairdinkum]

Because you haven't read the entire thread. It was mentioned a week ago.

Did read the thread, but missed your post. My bad.

The reason I mention this is because you are using the pro-fascism thing as a criticism of the movie, because you seem to be of the belief that this is propaganda. I'm merely pointing out that it is a common and recurring theme of the character, and hence, not some sly attempt to justify fascism.

One of the key aspects of the Joker/Batman relationship is anarchy vs fascism.

We all have our own interpretations.

Anyway, your point about Dent and blaming the deaths on Batman is flawed too. Quite clearly Batman needs the criminals to think he will kill them. He is whatever Gotham needs him to be (the Dark Knight), and likewise, Dent needs to have been killed by a dangerous criminal, so that he can be cannonised as its White Knight. If he merely died accidentally, the myth and legend of Harvey Dent is diminished.

If Batman 'needed' criminals to think he will kill them, why don't they blame more non-related deaths on him? I'm no Batman expert, but I don't recall any other film ever involving the police or other organisations blaming criminal deaths on Batman. But, if I you can prove me wrong, I will happily concede defeat.

As for Harvey Dent, how does having a great, lawful man die at hands of criminals (Batman or otherwise) help the psyche of the Gotham City residents? Isn't that just another win for the criminals?

Batman is not afraid to lie or misrepresent the truth - and in this case it gives Gotham a real hero, with a face (two actually ), and it also gives Gotham a villain to target, Batman.

What - a 'villain' that they will never catch? How on earth does that help the city or its people?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

First up - I've seen the batman movies, and read the occassional comic as a kid, but my understanding of the mythology and folklore is basically non-existant.

My thoughts:

It may have actually been said - Joker needs "The Batman". It completes him. It gives him something he is unable to do (corrupt him). If the Joker died in the combat on the building - he won.

Someone said it here, Batman can't kill Joker, Joker doesn't care if he dies. Joker corrupts people by stripping them to their core, in the belief that all are inherently selfish (and 'evil') - but Batman doesn't fall.

Gotham City as a modern city - crap, and IMO more likely than not done simply for the "smash through glass window" scene. Much prefer the gothic architecture throughout EVERY other source I've seen/read.

5 People are dead. No-one knows who the criminal is, but he's on the loose. It could be your neighbour. OR 5 people are dead. A 6-foot+ tall man in a bat-suit did it.

In the first scenario, you are wary of everybody...in the second, your only looking out for a 6 foot bat......if that didn't make you wary anyway then there's something wrong.

Dent was allready dead, so someone had to be blamed. By naming someone/(thing) that can be identified, it gives a focus to the general community, avoiding the anarchy that might be seen should a more accessible person be stated. It's all about managing the public.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Gotham City as a modern city - crap, and IMO more likely than not done simply for the "smash through glass window" scene. Much prefer the gothic architecture throughout EVERY other source I've seen/read.
.

Agree, which is something the Burton movies do have over the current Nolan films which gave the city a gothic, comic book 1930s feel, but with controlled amounts of modern artifcacts thrown in to keep with the times. These Nolan films are Batman movies after all and visually they tried to make the setting of Gothan City a little too "real". This Nolan series is still the better series though.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

If Batman 'needed' criminals to think he will kill them, why don't they blame more non-related deaths on him? I'm no Batman expert, but I don't recall any other film ever involving the police or other organisations blaming criminal deaths on Batman. But, if I you can prove me wrong, I will happily concede defeat.

Watch the movie a second time, Batman is clearly being shown as weak by The Joker, because of his 'one rule' in that he won't kill. The Mafia boss even laughs at Batman, taunting him by saying that nobody will risk going against The Joker because they know he's more dangerous than Batman. Without fear, Batman is just a rich guy in a suit.

Batman sees the opportunity to do two things at one time:

1. Cover up the Dent death and fall from Grace. The symbolism of Harvey Dent the hero was too important to let go, if it turned out that the one guy in the city who seemed to truly want to change it for the better, had fallen from grace and murdered 5 people out of revenge, all of Dent's work is undone. Batman taking the wrap gives Gotham some hope.

2. Will give Batman back his aura of fear, the main weapon he uses against crime. Notice at the start of the movie how the low-level crims see the bat signal, and shit bricks?

As for Harvey Dent, how does having a great, lawful man die at hands of criminals (Batman or otherwise) help the psyche of the Gotham City residents? Isn't that just another win for the criminals?

You have to remember he's already dead when they make that decision. It isn't like they had a choice between keeping him alive and rehabilitating him or anything. He was dead. It was how he was going to be remembered that was in question. He can be remembered as a cop-killing, revenge seeking psychopath, or he can be remembered as Gotham's white knight, the man who died fighting the good fight.

What - a 'villain' that they will never catch? How on earth does that help the city or its people?

Gives them a visible target, and a common enemy. Like say, Osama Bin Laden. It's all propaganda from Batman. He knows what he's doing, he's a fascist.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

5 People are dead. No-one knows who the criminal is, but he's on the loose. It could be your neighbour. OR 5 people are dead. A 6-foot+ tall man in a bat-suit did it.

In the first scenario, you are wary of everybody...in the second, your only looking out for a 6 foot bat......if that didn't make you wary anyway then there's something wrong.

Dent was allready dead, so someone had to be blamed. By naming someone/(thing) that can be identified, it gives a focus to the general community, avoiding the anarchy that might be seen should a more accessible person be stated. It's all about managing the public.

Exactly. It's the whole point of the title 'The Dark Knight' - he does what Gotham needs, even if it might bring harm to himself. He puts the state ahead of the individual.