Mark Vader Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Just saw it. Here's my 2 cents. They can stop making any more Batman movies because they won't be able to top The Dark Knight. And it will be a travesty if Heath Ledger doesn't win an Oscar. In comparison Jack Nicholson was a goof. Ledger is the soul of the Joker. PTR What concerns me is that Christopher Nolan now has to top himself with the 3rd Batman movie he is contractually obligated to do. Oh well, I have faith in him to pull off another good one. As for Heath Ledger winning the Oscar, I'm ok with that, but maybe the academy could be generous enough to give Aaron Eckhart a supporting actor nomination too? Eckhart was outstanding in this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 What concerns me is that Christopher Nolan now has to top himself with the 3rd Batman movie he is contractually obligated to do.Oh well, I have faith in him to pull off another good one. Remember, Empire was the best of the original Star Wars -- why? Because the second act of a trilogy is always the most emotional, demanding and dark. The third part inherently has to be lighter (hence, Ewoks), and more uplifting. I still feel Begins is the better of the two. We'll see though when I go and see it again this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Just saw it. Here's my 2 cents. They can stop making any more Batman movies because they won't be able to top The Dark Knight. And it will be a travesty if Heath Ledger doesn't win an Oscar. In comparison Jack Nicholson was a goof. Ledger is the soul of the Joker. PTR I heard a good comment on this-- that Ledger played the Joker less like Nicholson in Batman and more like Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 I heard a good comment on this-- that Ledger played the Joker less like Nicholson in Batman and more like Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I wonder if Nicholson saw the Dark Knight and wished he could have played the Joker like a real psycho instead of a foppish cartoon? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 23, 2008 Author Share Posted July 23, 2008 Remember, Empire was the best of the original Star Wars -- why? Because the second act of a trilogy is always the most emotional, demanding and dark. The third part inherently has to be lighter (hence, Ewoks), and more uplifting. I still feel Begins is the better of the two. We'll see though when I go and see it again this week. Its funny that you mention it. I was thinking Empire as I walked out of the theater. The good guys don't walk away feeling too well after either movie. But with a 3rd being lighter and more uplifting, does that mean nipples on the Batsuit and Robin? Actually, given what Nolan and company have done, I think they could actually string together a decent story involving Robin, even though I never want to see it. I know there's one story out there that I actually liked that invovled Robin, so it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Its funny that you mention it. I was thinking Empire as I walked out of the theater. The good guys don't walk away feeling too well after either movie. But with a 3rd being lighter and more uplifting, does that mean nipples on the Batsuit and Robin? Actually, given what Nolan and company have done, I think they could actually string together a decent story involving Robin, even though I never want to see it. I know there's one story out there that I actually liked that invovled Robin, so it can be done. I think I've read somewhere they will absolutely not consider bringing Robin into the mix -- which to me, is a good thing. Good analogy w/r/t Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Remember, Empire was the best of the original Star Wars -- why? Because the second act of a trilogy is always the most emotional, demanding and dark. The third part inherently has to be lighter (hence, Ewoks), and more uplifting. I still feel Begins is the better of the two. We'll see though when I go and see it again this week. I agree with you about Empire. However would you also say that The Two Towers is the best of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 23, 2008 Share Posted July 23, 2008 Its funny that you mention it. I was thinking Empire as I walked out of the theater. The good guys don't walk away feeling too well after either movie. But with a 3rd being lighter and more uplifting, does that mean nipples on the Batsuit and Robin? Actually, given what Nolan and company have done, I think they could actually string together a decent story involving Robin, even though I never want to see it. I know there's one story out there that I actually liked that invovled Robin, so it can be done. The only nipples I want to see are the ones on Catwoman. That would be very uplifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 24, 2008 Author Share Posted July 24, 2008 The only nipples I want to see are the ones on Catwoman. That would be very uplifting. And that right there is the post of the day. Nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I agree with you about Empire. However would you also say that The Two Towers is the best of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? No. Most people would say Return of the King is the best of that trilogy, but I like Fellowship the best because the cast is still (relatively) small and the fight scene at the end is pretty personal (i.e. it isn't 10,000 CGI guys fighting 20,000 other CGI guys; it's the Fellowship fighting a bunch of orcs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 24, 2008 Author Share Posted July 24, 2008 I just got back from seeing it again. Maybe someone can answer this question. At the end, Gordon says to Batman that Dent was responsible for 5 deaths, 2 of which were cops. Who was there other than Wertz, Maroni's driver, and presumably Maroni in that crash? He didn't kill Ramirez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I just got back from seeing it again. Maybe someone can answer this question. At the end, Gordon says to Batman that Dent was responsible for 5 deaths, 2 of which were cops. Who was there other than Wertz, Maroni's driver, and presumably Maroni in that crash? He didn't kill Ramirez. Did he blame Dent for the death of the commish ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Did he blame Dent for the death of the commish ? Nah -- that was clearly the Joker's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 24, 2008 Author Share Posted July 24, 2008 Nah -- that was clearly the Joker's work. And Dent was right there in plain sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Just saw it on IMAX. It was enjoyable, but I was disappointed. I was expecting to enjoy this one more than Batman Begins, but I didn't. There were some real cheese moments, such as the line, "The only morality in a cruel world is chance." The movie dragged at points, and I didn't really like the writing. I found myself much more interested in more minor characters in the film, like the Harvey Dent character, the Police Commissioner, and the mobsters. They did a good job with the overall personality of the Joker, but there wasn't anything to the Joker. Great, he's an anarchist. He wants other people to be anarchists, and he thinks the world is !@#$ed, I got that in the first part of the movie. Lack of really any depth made him seem more like a plot tool than a real character. It would have been much more interesting, imo, if they had explored harvey dent's emotional roller coaster more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Bills fan Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 My wife and I went to see it a few days ago. (It just opened down here in NZ) We both thought it was a great flick. (On another note... I can't believe they're marketing this thing for kids. There is no way in hell kids should see this movie.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 27, 2008 Author Share Posted July 27, 2008 There were some real cheese moments, such as the line, "The only morality in a cruel world is chance." The movie dragged at points, and I didn't really like the writing. I found myself much more interested in more minor characters in the film, like the Harvey Dent character, the Police Commissioner, and the mobsters. Dent and Gordon are probably the main characters in the whole thing. You have your over the top good and evil in Batman and the Joker, then Dent and Gordon are the true human element in the movie. The story is definitely about Dent more than anyone else. (On another note... I can't believe they're marketing this thing for kids. There is no way in hell kids should see this movie.) I never really paid attention to much of the marketing beyond the viral internet campaign and the trailers/tv spots. How did they market it to kids? My guess is that the studio was probably the big ones behind that if it did happen. I saw couple interviews where Bale and Nolan both were shying away from letting kids see this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 Dent and Gordon are probably the main characters in the whole thing. You have your over the top good and evil in Batman and the Joker, then Dent and Gordon are the true human element in the movie. The story is definitely about Dent more than anyone else. Which is why the movie didn't really work for me - it felt like they couldn't pick who the hell they wanted to be the focus of the movie. They spent most of their attention on the Joker, but didn't really explore the psychological trauma that Dent was going through. They also didn't provide the Joker with much of anything, outside of being an anarchist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 You have your over the top good and evil in Batman and the Joker, then Dent and Gordon are the true human element in the movie. See, for me that's an issue. Cause Batman isn't over the top good. He's a hero, yes. But he's a !@#$ing psychopath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 27, 2008 Author Share Posted July 27, 2008 See, for me that's an issue. Cause Batman isn't over the top good. He's a hero, yes. But he's a !@#$ing psychopath. Ok, poor choice in words. Batman and the Joker are locked into their roles. They can't be broken. They are what they are. Dent and Gordon are stuck in between, trapped in a world of corruption and could easily go either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts