The Dark Knight (Possible spoilers)

[Sahar]

I saw it a week ago and I really liked it.

 

[Watchmen]

I agree with everything. Harvey Dent storyline obtrusive and everyone kept tripping over it. Should have saved it for the third installment.

Disagree. Harvey Dent storyling provided another example of the chaos vs. order theme that prevailed throughout the movie.

Storyline interchangeable. Could have been any action or non superhero movie. I wouldn't have missed any characters in a Bat-suit or painted clown face. Aspects of Batman, completely under-whelmed.

Disagree. On a second viewing I noticed even more of Batman's detective skills in action and clown face would have been sorely missed.

2 and half hour infomercial for merchandising Bat-Pods.

What's a Bat-Pod? His batmobile-motorcycle??? He also drove a regular motorcycle the batmobile and a lambourgini, not to mention sailing with the Russian ballet and flying in a C-130 with the koreans. Previous installments would have had the bat-copter, bat-boat, etc.

Was this movie for kids or was it for adults? Should it have been rated R or PG-13? When you have decided on a rating, let me know.

The movie was for some kids and for some adults. And given that movie ratings are mostly useless, the best course is for parents to make informed decisions about whether their own children can watch it or not. Since when does a movie have to conform to a screwed up rating system?

And talk about leaving us hanging. What happened at the party that the Joker busted up? He throws Rachel out the window, Batman jumps out to save her, they land on a car, share affectionate looks towards each other-cut to the next scene?!?! What happened at the party? Did everyone leave? Did anyone call the cops? Did anyone get killed? Did they have enough bacon-wrapped shrimp for the Joker? Did they hire the DJ to play for an extra hour? Did the projectionist mix up the film reels?

So what? Whatever happened at the party was irrelevant to the story. Must you know everything that's happening off screen?

 

[cardero]

DisneyMan writes: Disagree. Harvey Dent storyling provided another example of the chaos vs. order theme that prevailed throughout the movie.

The only thing the Harvey Dent storyline did for me was to fuel my anticipation that Hollywood now had the makeup special effect capabilities to generate a convincing Jonah Hex movie. By omitting the Dent storyline, they could have cut the running time or better yet, introduce the audience to the compelling origin of the Joker. Christopher Nolan is no stranger to the use and concept of flashback.

An emotional driven, character-developing Joker back story culled from the pages of The Killing Joke would have been more entertaining, more memorable than the disposable “Why so serious?” catchphrase.

DisneyMan writes: What's a Bat-Pod? His batmobile-motorcycle??? He also drove a regular motorcycle the batmobile and a lambourgini, not to mention sailing with the Russian ballet and flying in a C-130 with the koreans.

Cardero writes: Storyline interchangeable. Could have been any action or non superhero movie. I wouldn't have missed any characters in a Bat-suit or painted clown face. Aspects of Batman, completely under-whelmed.

You mean like Xander Cage or James Bond?

DisneyMan writes: The movie was for some kids and for some adults. And given that movie ratings are mostly useless, the best course is for parents to make informed decisions about whether their own children can watch it or not. Since when does a movie have to conform to a screwed up rating system?

I firmly believe that kids wouldn’t be able to follow or understand this movie. From reading the many reviews (good and bad), critics and adult audience goers agreed that the plot was convoluted and the pacing unsettling. I also believe that the executives and producers of the movie were shooting for a PG-13 rating way before the film was submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America (so that it would be easier to tie in with their merchandising to the consumers of Cheerios and Fruit Roll-Ups).

DisneyMan writes:So what? Whatever happened at the party was irrelevant to the story. Must you know everything that's happening off screen?

With a scene that was supposed to generate tension and intrigue as this one was supposed to, I don't find this particular request unreasonable.

 

[Mister_T]

Ahem... I have been offered the role... And i have already accepted. Sorry PSH!!!

The Don gets my vote.

 

[Magic Man]

The only thing the Harvey Dent storyline did for me was to fuel my anticipation that Hollywood now had the makeup special effect capabilities to generate a convincing Jonah Hex movie. By omitting the Dent storyline, they could have cut the running time or better yet, introduce the audience to the compelling origin of the Joker. Christopher Nolan is no stranger to the use and concept of flashback.

An emotional driven, character-developing Joker back story culled from the pages of The Killing Joke would have been more entertaining than a disposable “Why so serious?” catchphrase.

I disagree. I like the fact that they didn't go into the Joker's background. IT was unnecessary, and I think it worked better with him just being this mysterious "agent of chaos". I think the backstory would have ruined that image a bit.

You mean like James Bond?

By this logic, though, you could say that about any comic book or book or movie. Many characters are interchangeable if you don't look at the details.

I firmly believe that kids wouldn’t be able to follow or understand this movie. From reading many reviews (good and bad) critics and audience goers agreed that the plot was convoluted and the pacing unsettling. I also believe that the executives and producers of the movie were shooting for a PG-13 rating way before the film was submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America (so that it would be easier to tie in with their merchandising to the consumers of Cheerios and Fruit Roll-Ups).

You're probably right. It's not made for kids. Is that a bad thing?

 

[cardero]

Mball writes: I disagree. I like the fact that they didn't go into the Joker's background. IT was unnecessary, and I think it worked better with him just being this mysterious "agent of chaos". I think the backstory would have ruined that image a bit.

I think that a small amount of screen time devoted to an origin story about why a scarred, homicidal, psychotic, make-up wearing villain wouldn’t have been out of place in a film like this.

Mball writes: By this logic, though, you could say that about any comic book or book or movie. Many characters are interchangeable if you don't look at the details.

The trick is to make the movie so that it can only be distinguished as a Batman movie. I feel Christopher Nolan did not achieve this. He made have had the props and the costumes but the heart and soul did not show up to the set.

Mball writes: You're probably right. It's not made for kids. Is that a bad thing?

Not for me, I do not get I.D. requests from cashiers before seeing any movies. A Batman outing with more graphic violence, more adult situations would have appealed to me more than a Batman movie that pulls its punches. The kid inside me still feels that those Cheerio toys suck.

 

[Magic Man]

I think that a small amount of screen time devoted to an origin story about why a scarred, homicidal, psychotic, make-up wearing villain wouldn’t have been out of place in a film like this.

It might not have. I just think it was great without it.

The trick is to make the movie so that it can only be distinguished as a Batman movie. I feel Christopher Nolan did not achieve this. He made have had the props and the costumes but the heart and soul did not show up to the set.

And I think that's what happened here. That's why I added the part about looking at the details. I think this was very much a Batman movie that had broader implications.

Not for me, I do not get I.D. requests from cashiers before seeing any movies. A Batman outing with more graphic violence, more adult situations would have appealed to me more than a Batman movie that pulls its punches. The kid inside me still feels that those Cheerio toys suck.

So, you want a grittier, more violent Batman, then? I think this was as dark and gritty as it needed to be. I don't think they pulled any punches. I have never seen people cringe as they did at the pencil scene.

 

[cardero]

mball1297 writes: It might not have. I just think it was great without it.

I think it would have been interesting to see what Heath Ledger would have brought to the role of the character before he became a Joker. This character stretch could have made the Joker’s performance more startling. In some strains of continuity there is even legend that pertains to Batman even helping in the creation of the Joker, this would have been an interesting and ironic avenue to explore.

mball1297 writes: And I think that's what happened here. That's why I added the part about looking at the details. I think this was very much a Batman movie that had broader implications.

There were discussions about how this movie focused more on the city and its citizens but Batman’s stories have always been better expressed when they’ve been portrayed intimately. This should have just been the story about Batman and the Joker.

Mball 1297 writes: So, you want a grittier, more violent Batman, then? I think this was as dark and gritty as it needed to be. I don't think they pulled any punches. I have never seen people cringe as they did at the pencil scene.

But the pencil scene seems to be the only thing that people remember or are talking about. I would’ve enjoyed seeing more scenes like the pencil scene even at the expense of losing the PG-13 rating. It’s the Joker!!!!

 

[cardero]

Has anyone figured out why Heath Ledger kept licking his lips in the film? Was it a nervous tick he brought to the character, was it because the make-up kept drying before he had to say his lines or was it because he was auditioning on-screen for the role of Killer Croc for the next Batman film? Personally, I'm thinking it was the first example.

 

[McBell]

Has anyone figured out why Heath Ledger kept licking his lips in the film? Was it a nervous tick he brought to the character, was it because the make-up kept drying before he had to say his lines or was it because he was auditioning on-screen for the role of Killer Croc in the next Batman film? Persoanlly, I'm thinking it was the first example.

From the Internet Movie Database:

The Joker make-up was composed of three pieces of stamped silicone, which took less than an hour to apply to Heath Ledger on each day of shooting. Ledger described it as "new technology which is much quicker to apply than regular prosthetics"; he felt he was not wearing any make-up at all.

To prepare for his role as the Joker, Heath Ledger lived alone in a hotel room for a month, formulating the character's psychology, posture and voice (the last one he found most difficult to do). He started a diary, in which he wrote the Joker's thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performance. He was also given Alan Moore's comic "Batman: The Killing Joke" and "Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth" to read. Ledger also took inspiration from A Clockwork Orange (1971)'s Alex and Sid Vicious.

It's Sir Michael Caine's opinion that Heath Ledger beat the odds and topped Jack Nicholson's Joker from Batman (1989): "Jack was like a clown figure, benign but wicked, maybe a killer old uncle. He could be funny and make you laugh. Heath's gone in a completely different direction to Jack, he's like a really scary psychopath. He's a lovely guy and his Joker is going to be a hell of a revelation in this picture." Caine bases this belief on a scene where the Joker pays a visit to Bruce Wayne's penthouse. He'd never met Ledger before, so when Ledger arrived and performed he gave Caine such a fright he forgot his lines.
​

I would say of the choices presented the first and last ones are the best bet, but I tend to favour the first one.

 

[Watchmen]

Cardero, will just have to agree to disagree. I get the impression you're primarily unhappy with the story they choose to tell whereas I was happy with the story they choose to tell and felt they did it well.

 

[Watchmen]

Has anyone figured out why Heath Ledger kept licking his lips in the film? Was it a nervous tick he brought to the character, was it because the make-up kept drying before he had to say his lines or was it because he was auditioning on-screen for the role of Killer Croc for the next Batman film? Personally, I'm thinking it was the first example.

I'm pretty sure it was just something to add to his creepiness.

 

[dawny0826]

My sisters and I saw it yesterday. I thought it was wonderful. In my opinion, Heather Ledger's best performance.\

I enjoyed it so much better than "Batman Begins", partly because I think Maggie Gyllenhaal gave a stellar performance as Rachel. Katie did not do Rachel justice.

My only qualm with the story line itself is that they should have finalized the situation with the Joker. I think a plunge from the building would have been appropriate.

 

[Halcyon]

I found it to be too long, if it were up to me I would have kept it to an hour and a half to 2 hours max, also I would have left the Twoface storyline with him in hospital, so he could be the villian in the next film.

 

[Kcnorwood]

I found it to be too long, if it were up to me I would have kept it to an hour and a half to 2 hours max, also I would have left the Twoface storyline with him in hospital, so he could be the villian in the next film.

To be honest I was worried how they were going to fill the two & half Hrs, they filled it just perfect.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

The Don gets my vote.

The Don is pleased.

 

[Watchmen]

I found it to be too long, if it were up to me I would have kept it to an hour and a half to 2 hours max, also I would have left the Twoface storyline with him in hospital, so he could be the villian in the next film.

That would defeat the point of the story they were telling, IMO.

 

[Father Heathen]

I've finally went to see this movie. I thought it was alright, but nowhere near lived up to the hype. Same with ledger's performance. It was good, but not as magnificent as people had made it out to be. Then again, that could be because the character itself wasn't as fleshed out as it should've been ( I think Nicholson's Joker was better). The movie had some really great scenes (like the magic pencil trick and what the convict does with the detonator) but a lot of plot and character elements made no sense to me, and I don't really like what they did with a few of the classic batman characters. Also the political overtones, which I found similiar to those in "300", are just plain cheesy.

Of course it's still better than most of the older batman movies.