The Dark Knight part deux

[dits]

I gotta disagree with the people who say that Mr. Freeze has been ruined just by that campy protrayal by the Governator. If you go by the B:TAS incarnation of Mr. Freeze, you'll see a tragic figure that was originally motivated by the love of his wife into a life of crime. Think what Nolan could do with a character like that.

I agree with most of the people here that if Nolan isn't the one at the helm at the next Batfilm then its better the franchise end on this high note.

[Relic]

Seems to me like they are setting up something akin to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Who are they going to use instead of the Joker tho?

Fuckin great movie. Not sure you can make a better Batman movie. Were it up to me id trim about 20 minutes of fat and make the movie that much better.

[Brude]

Saw it last night and loved it. I need to see it again - it's got so much going on, I want to make sure I have it all. But what an epic story, just huge. But it's epic more for the themes it deals with than for big spectacle. There was more danger for more people in the first, but I didn't feel it as much because they were faceless people. This film placed more emphasis on the struggles of multiple heroes (Dent and Gordon, along with Batman) and what they mean as people look to them and look up to them for leadership. Whether they win, lose, rise or fall represents the struggle of the great multitude, whom we seldom see, but we still feel and so the epic nature of the story somehow becomes even stronger than by just showing a teeming mass of people running for their lives.

Clearly the intention was to bring back the Joker in this series, but if they ever do it won't be for some time. Who wants to follow that performance? How can they? God, Leger was great. Easily one of the best movie villains I have ever seen.

Aaron Eckart was fantastic as Dent/Two-Face. I thought the story really made that character work and made you understand his transformation on a pretty deep level. I was surprised they went through the whole Two-Face story in one go, but two of my friends insist he isn't dead at the end and he was breathing. Now, sometimes I see actors playing dead and you can still see them moving accidentally or breathing a bit but they say it was too clear. I guess the funeral for him could have been a sham and he is locked away in Arkham Asylum but I don't know. So maybe he isn't done as a character, maybe he will come back.

Comparing this version of Batman to the original series, it make that feel so childish and kind of pathetic in some ways. I never liked the original Batman movie, thougt the second was damn good but for the end and the third managed to be pop-corn fun. But comparing this Joker to Nicholson's, well there is just no comparison. I never liked Nicholson's performance and never understood why so many people did. When it came out I thought Tommy Lee Jones' take on Two-face was great - and honestly he made the most with what he had - but to turn him into such a tragic figure, one who was such a "White Knight," as the film often calls him, but who falls so far, was a masterstroke. The original film only mentions in passing that he had been a great prosecutor before falling into depravity, but this one takes you through the whole process so that you really understand it. Great and powerful stuff.

[Crow's Eye]

Just....wow.

It's been almost 24 hours since I've seen the film, and it's still running through my head and I'm at a loss for words to describe it. Just a brilliant movie, from top to bottom. I thought there was no way that either (i) Ledger's performance, or (ii) the movie as a whole could live up to the hype. I was sooooo wrong.

A lot has been said about the film, and I won't waste space repeating it all, but I did have to add that I loved the way Nolan flip-flopped the real battle going on here - instead of the good v. evil polarity, it really ended up being a battle of order v. chaos. The Joker summed it up nicely - no one cares if a gangbanger dies, because that's part of the plan, part of the order. But if the Mayor dies, it's chaos. That was, I think, the central dynamic of this film, and why it was so good (well, one of many reasons it was so good, but this was the one that most resonated with me).

The people of Gotham put up with mob violence and rule for years, but it was "ok" because it was part of the social order. No one cared that judges and the police were corrupt - that was what people expected. They had become conditioned to it, like one of Pavlov's dogs. But now a madman starts killing people who aren't supposed to die, and the population loses it. In the end, "good" and "evil" didn't matter at all, only "order" and "chaos." That's quite a turn for a superhero movie, which is the one place you would always expect it to be about good and evil.

In the end, Batman's decision to take the fall for Dent was his implicit recognition of this fact - the people could handle this masked vigilante going off the reservation and killing cops - strange, sure, but not chaotic. But if their white knight prosecutor starts killing cops, it's chaos. Initially the chaos is shocking, but the more this chaos happens, the more it becomes part of the plan; the norm; "order." I think Batman and the Joker both realized that the destruction of Harvey Dent as a public figure (whether he's alive or dead) would destroy all the "good" that Batman had done in one fell swoop, and would inch all that the Joker did toward "order" and the norm.

Amazing theme for a movie based upon a comic book. Bravo, indeed.

[Intercept]

No more Joker is going to break the series.

He's the foil of all foils. If they don't bring him back, there is really no more point of making more sequels. At that point they'd simply be milking it.

It's like having Professor X without Magneto.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='dits' post='1447560' date='Jul 20 2008, 07.30']I gotta disagree with the people who say that Mr. Freeze has been ruined just by that campy protrayal by the Governator. If you go by the B:TAS incarnation of Mr. Freeze, you'll see a tragic figure that was originally motivated by the love of his wife into a life of crime. Think what Nolan could do with a character like that.

I agree with most of the people here that if Nolan isn't the one at the helm at the next Batfilm then its better the franchise end on this high note.[/quote]And that episode of B:TAS with Mr. Freeze won an Emmy.

[PhoenixFlame]

[quote]A lot has been said about the film, and I won't waste space repeating it all, but I did have to add that I loved the way Nolan flip-flopped the real battle going on here - instead of the good v. evil polarity, it really ended up being a battle of order v. chaos. The Joker summed it up nicely - no one cares if a gangbanger dies, because that's part of the plan, part of the order. But if the Mayor dies, it's chaos. That was, I think, the central dynamic of this film, and why it was so good (well, one of many reasons it was so good, but this was the one that most resonated with me).[/quote]

Yes! I'm writing a review of this for the paper (youth page, so it's coming out a little later than the others) and that's my biggest point. I've heard some people call it a great battle between good and evil but I don't think that at all--it's much more order vs. chaos. Closer to Shakespeare than a morality play. I mean, what are a lot of comic books other than modern-day fairytales? If there is good vs. evil, I think it's much more the city itself, seeped in corruption and darkness, and a small bit of undying light that keeps things in just a bit of equilibrium. But again, it goes back to order vs. chaos.

Perhaps I'm overthinking it... :leaving:

Though still, some parts felt utterly Shakespearean. Not to say Nolan and his brother have Shakespeare's linguistic talent, but that monologue of the Joker at the end? Hells to the fucking YES.

[Relic]

cant stop thinking bout this movie

[WarGalley]

It seems Dark Knight will break Spiderman 3 with a [url="http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/20/news/companies/batman.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes"]weekend haul of 155 million[/url].

I thought this part was interesting.

[quote]"The Dark Knight," which cost $185 million to make, also broke the "Spider-Man 3" record for best debut in IMAX large-screen theaters with $6.2 million. "Spider-Man 3" opened with $4.7 million in IMAX cinemas.

"Every single show is sold out," said Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president. "We're adding shows as much as we can, but we're at 100 percent capacity.[/quote]

I see a lot of boarders plan to see it again while in theaters (including myself). I also know people IRL who will do the same thing which is a lot of people for any movie that I've seen. I wonder how the 1-week or 10-day total will pan out.

[Mexal]

[quote name='WarGalley' post='1447788' date='Jul 20 2008, 14.47']It seems Dark Knight will break Spiderman 3 with a [url="http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/20/news/companies/batman.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes"]weekend haul of 155 million[/url].[/quote]

The weekend isn't even over yet?

[Slurktan]

I thought it was amazing as most of you have so I won't dwell on it. Just amazing.

However I'd go in a completely different way for any potential sequel. Given that Batman is the villain now and on the run I'd make the antagonist Superman. You can't do a movie like the previous two where "madman" wants to destroy Gotham, it's been done. Go the other way with it, plus it stops from comparing a villain inevitably to Ledger.

[Rhom]

I just got done reading all six pages of this thread... I can't add much to the discussion, it was truly amazing and I don't know how they could top this. All the scenes already mentioned resonated with me as well.

One thing that I will say... Maggie Gyllenhall makes me hate Katie Holmes even more. After BB, I repeatedly said that there was no purpose for the Dawes character and that it was just horrible all around. Gyllenhall actually made the character work for me, and that was no small feat. Sure she wasn't iconic or supremely memorable like Ledger (I find it ironic that the other most notable roll in his career in Brokeback Mountain was opposite her brother), but she actually gave me a reason to care (and be shocked) when her character died.

Lastly, one thing that I loved most about the character was the different stories that we got from Joker about his scars. First the dad... then the wife... I was really hoping for a third story later in the movie. Just another layer on the enigma that this character was in this version of the story.

A+

[Shryke]

[quote name='Slurktan' post='1447798' date='Jul 20 2008, 14.57']I thought it was amazing as most of you have so I won't dwell on it. Just amazing.

However I'd go in a completely different way for any potential sequel. Given that Batman is the villain now and on the run I'd make the antagonist Superman. You can't do a movie like the previous two where "madman" wants to destroy Gotham, it's been done. Go the other way with it, plus it stops from comparing a villain inevitably to Ledger.[/quote]

That ... that would be the stupidest thing ever.

[BLU-RAY]

[quote name='rhombencephalon' post='1447812' date='Jul 20 2008, 12.16']Lastly, one thing that I loved most about the character was the different stories that we got from Joker about his scars. First the dad... then the wife... I was really hoping for a third story later in the movie. Just another layer on the enigma that this character was in this version of the story.

A+[/quote]


Yeah, that completely [i]made [/i]the character. Just fantastic.

[WarGalley]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1447796' date='Jul 20 2008, 14.55']The weekend isn't even over yet?[/quote]

Granted it's just a projection, but I don't think it'll be off and not break S3.

I should have also noted that I think it was also projected to sell a slightly less amount of tickets than S3 if you factor in the average ticket price.

[Slurktan]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1447826' date='Jul 20 2008, 15.29']That ... that would be the stupidest thing ever.[/quote]

As usual your level of criticism is brilliant. Why?

[Stark Swordsman]

A few thoughts and notes on the movie:
I have mixed feelings on the idea that the Joker pulled a switcheroo on the detonators. It does create more chaos as things aren't going according to plan, but it also rewards people for being good and punishes them for being evil which is more misguided vigilante-ish than psycho-villainish.
I cringed when I saw the ultra-spy system until I saw that he gave exclusive control over it not to himself but to Fox. That said that he knew the power was necessary but it had to be checked. It was also nice to see it shut down when it was done. Batman relinquished his power when he no longer needed it (playing off of the Caesar reference).
I liked the dog motif in the film. There were many reference to mad dogs, and releasing the leash. The armor couldn't protect batman from dogs. He was chased by dogs at the end. This is especially important since dogs are typically a symbol of madness and insanity. Thus, it is possible to interpret the dogs chasing batman as his quest to stay sane. The associations of the villains with dogs is obvious with respect to its symbolic value. They are a far better motif animal than bat were in Begins.
If there is a sequel (and there should be) they should have a different actor play the Joker (or have no one play him but make his effects known). He's too much of a foil to Batman not to exist even if Ledger can't do it. Also, any other villains must have something unusual with their face. There's been too much of emphasis on the face and identity in both movies for the next villain not to have such a thing.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Slurktan' post='1447845' date='Jul 20 2008, 15.52']As usual your level of criticism is brilliant. Why?[/quote]

Because the inclusion of superman would be completely counter to the entire feel and premise of the 2 previous movies?

[Commodore]

[quote name='Stark Swordsman' post='1447858' date='Jul 20 2008, 15.18']I cringed when I saw the ultra-spy system until I saw that he gave exclusive control over it not to himself but to Fox. That said that he knew the power was necessary but it had to be checked. It was also nice to see it shut down when it was done. Batman relinquished his power when he no longer needed it (playing off of the Caesar reference).[/quote]

You liked this? Talk about a complete copout. "This is terrible, but we'll use it this once because we need it." Not exactly a principled position.

This was also another part that stetched the limits of belief. "Let's invent something that allows Batman to hear anyone at any time". That's what we call a forced plot device, and pretty ham handed one at that.

Next Fox will come up with something that allows Batman to instantly teleport to any location.

[Shryke]

You know, the whole "Searching for his voice" thing, I didn't mind. It worked well with the whole "Caesar/Protector of Rome" theme from earlier.

The Sonar thing though? Unnecessary imo and the one big glaring point in the movie I didn't like.