The Dark Knight

Yeah, the whole fake batmen storyline felt thrown in there. Speaking of that scene, you know who would actually make a good Joker if they made another sequel?? Cillian Murphy! Don't see how they could do that tho. Joseph Gordon Levitt is probably the next best bet.

As I look back on the movie, I think the thing that bothered me most was that there were way too many storylines. I particularly wasn't into the Harvey Dent storyline, and then I thought - man, they didn't even need Harvey Dent. Would anyone argue that heath ledger's Joker couldn't hold down the villian front by himself? Without Dent, you'd also be able to streamline the story and expand on the Joker's screentime. I think I would've liked it much more had they done this. But, you know, they did what they did and 95% of the audience loved it so what does my opinion matter?
 
My picks for a next Joker (if he is featured in the next film): Daniel Day-Lewis, Giovanni Ribisi, Clive Owen, Tim Roth, Mark Wahlberg (yeah, he was terrible in The Happening, but great in Boogie Nights and The Departed), Gael Garcia Bernal, Casey Affleck, Adrien Brody (who apparently wanted the part before Ledger was cast), and hell, maybe even Jake Gyllenhaal (and that's not a cheap Brokeback Mountain joke). I don't know if most of them would be the absolute right choice, but I think they're some of the best actors working today.
 
Spoilers: I think you absolutely needed Dent. It was important to the whole stories theme, ending, the jokers plan, the jokers philosophy on his relationship to batman, etc.

How could this movie exist without the Dent storyline in there?
 
GageFX said:
Possibly the most unattractive person ever, AND she acted horribly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, um, you gotta lay off Maggie Gyllenhaal here. The casting of these movies (overseen by John Papsidera who has done all of Nolan's movies as far as I know) is done based on acting talent. Sure the role is the weakest of all those written, it's tough for a female in the testosterone-filled world that most of these type of movies are, but replacing Katie Holmes was a good move and Maggie has serious skills. She did all she could IMO with what was on the page for her. Obviously the Rachel Dawes character has more going on upstairs than the revolving door of throwaways Bruce Wayne has on his arm at social events. You don't see him considering burning the batsuit for them do you? It's all part of the plan.
 
To each his own on that but both Gyllenhaal and Cruise-bot have a kind of look. Right? To me Holmes played strong and witty and Gyllenhaal is strong and witty. I thought it was an upgrade, obviously Holmes is still around so they replaced her for their reasons. I have trouble seeing Katie in any kind of a serious adult role still. Kinda like Denise Richards as a rocket scientist or whatever she was in The World is Not Enough.

And actually I was going to say "they will never try to replace Ledger's Joker" but then I guess the Dawes casting situation is proof that they may try. I think it would be a mistake. It's unfortunate but I think to try and get someone to come in and match Heath's performance....shouldn't happen until the next franchise reboot (in like 10 years).
 
Quick impressions (will develop later):

The Good

Good script
Good performances (Maggie was way better than Holmes), Bale was excelent, and of course, Morgan Freeman and Heath were very, very good.

The Bad

Nolan's directing- This confirms what I tought troughtout his films: he's a boring director, or, shall I say, unexciting, pretty vanilla and " Standard. The camerawork and framing is average and "standard". In fact, his " cinematic language" is just plain vanila. Put any other " standard" Hollywood director with the same creative team and talent and you would get the same result. Nowhere near as exciting directing, framing and mise-en-scene as, say, Burton's Batman... People are comparing this to " Heat" . Well, this is nowhere close to Mann's directing...
 
KyleProhaska said:
Holy cripes, #1 on IMDB top 250....the user ratings are through the roof.

Sheesh..
Click to expand...

That situation is actually kinda funny. I'm sure it will level out a bit more here over the next week, but right now if I was working for IMDB.com I'd kinda be sh@tting a brick wondering how to fix our site's credibility from looking like The Dark Knight is better than the Godfather I & II, Shawshank, Casablanca, etc.

I gave this movie a 9.5 by the way (based on one viewing, it may change a bit on a 2nd) and since I gave Batman Begins an 8.5 (which I registered as a "9" on IMDB) I am part of the problem here because I gave The Dark Knight a "10" on IMDB b/c I think it improves greatly on BB.

There are lots of people voting a "1" over there to try and level things out. I think no one in their right mind thinks this movie is a "1" and I never understand those people's logic, (why get upset that people absolutely love a movie and rate it a "10"?) but those people are angry and childish and probably these 1's will drop it a ways down once the pandemonium settles a bit.
 
SPZ said:
The Bad

Nolan's directing- This confirms what I tought troughtout his films: he's a boring director, or, shall I say, unexciting, pretty vanilla and " Standard. The camerawork and framing is average and "standard". In fact, his " cinematic language" is just plain vanila. Put any other " standard" Hollywood director with the same creative team and talent and you would get the same result. Nowhere near as exciting directing, framing and mise-en-scene as, say, Burton's Batman... People are comparing this to " Heat" . Well, this is nowhere close to Mann's directing...
Click to expand...


The look of Burton's Batman was like a slightly-less-colorful spin on the Adam West TV series (particularly in the use of wide-angle lenses and oblique angles). I feel Nolan's direction is definitely above vanilla. Those amazing performances in the film? Any other vanilla director might have gotten equally vanilla performances (not bad, not stellar either). Not to discredit the actors and give it all to Nolan. But I really that a good performances comes partly from a good script and good director. I dug the cinematography/look too. It did the trick without being too show-off-y, and was very inspired at times (I love when the camera flips upside down on the Joker at the end). But whatever. Everyone has their own perspective.
 
SPZ said:
Quick impressions (will develop later):

The Good

Good script

The Bad

Nolan's directing- This confirms what I tought troughtout his films: he's a boring director, or, shall I say, unexciting, pretty vanilla and " Standard. The camerawork and framing is average and "standard". In fact, his " cinematic language" is just plain vanila. Put any other " standard" Hollywood director with the same creative team and talent and you would get the same result. Nowhere near as exciting directing, framing and mise-en-scene as, say, Burton's Batman... People are comparing this to " Heat" . Well, this is nowhere close to Mann's directing...
Click to expand...

Take away Nolan as director and you just lost your script. He and his brother are a great team. Again, to me with his directing style and the style of his Batman movies shifts away from the cheap tricks and focuses on the performances. I can live without fancy cuts and gimmicky tricks. I'll trade solid dramatic acting for that any day. All the Batman movies prior seem very adolescent now to me. These are adult Batman movies - where the action pieces serve to support the story - Nolan is to thank for that.

Nolan does employ some nice 360 circling camera moves during the first half which I liked (and use often myself) and I loved how he staged and shot the entire chase scene under the bridge - that whole sequence was amazing.

Billy Pilgrim said:
Those amazing performances in the film? Any other vanilla director might have gotten equally vanilla performances (not bad, not stellar either). Not to discredit the actors and give it all to Nolan. But I really that a good performances comes partly from a good script and good director. I dug the cinematography/look too. It did the trick without being too show-off-y, and was very inspired at times (I love when the camera flips upside down on the Joker at the end). But whatever. Everyone has their own perspective.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Loved the movie but came back to this thread to express my disdain for the average looking girlfriend that not just one, but TWO incredible men can't get over. When Bruce says... what he says (no spoiler I guess)... I can't believe it. Why would a super-cool, super-good looking BILLIONAIRE want to spend the rest of his life with ugly betty? Not buying it.

Also... the batman voice was pushed to 12 on a scale of 1-10... I wish they'd throttled that back a bit... in our favorite local theater, with sound so good it feels like headphones... his growling voice sounded overly processed.
 
Nolan and Mann have two completely different styles. You can't really compare the two IMO. There is no PERFECT movie, Because everyone has their own opinion. There are movies that I don't like that people can't understand how I don't like them. Almost anyone you talk to will have a different favorite movie of all time. It is just impossible for one movie to be the best ever. TDK was not perfect but it was the best movie I have seen in a while. The Godfather was not perfect either. There is guy at my job that told me that 300 was the greatest movie ever made.
 
MattinSTL said:
Loved the movie but came back to this thread to express my disdain for the average looking girlfriend that not just one, but TWO incredible men can't get over. When Bruce says... what he says (no spoiler I guess)... I can't believe it. Why would a super-cool, super-good looking BILLIONAIRE want to spend the rest of his life with ugly betty? Not buying it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Well I guess lucky for Gotham that the real Bruce Wayne is much less shallow. Geez. Obviously they could have cast anyone they wanted in BB and TDK and I'm sure many Hollywood starlets tried to get the role, but I think those at the helm knew what they were doing here.
 
MattinSTL said:
Loved the movie but came back to this thread to express my disdain for the average looking girlfriend that not just one, but TWO incredible men can't get over. When Bruce says... what he says (no spoiler I guess)... I can't believe it. Why would a super-cool, super-good looking BILLIONAIRE want to spend the rest of his life with ugly betty? Not buying it.

Also... the batman voice was pushed to 12 on a scale of 1-10... I wish they'd throttled that back a bit... in our favorite local theater, with sound so good it feels like headphones... his growling voice sounded overly processed.
Click to expand...

Looks are not everything. I would take an average doctor over a bombshell barista any day of the week.
 
Billionaires don't have to make choices like that... there are plenty of high quality, high caliber women in the world... maybe not at your local starbucks... but there aren't many billionaires there either. It's a fallacy to think that men don't want hot women... look at who billionaires hook up with in real life. A pretty good barometer for simulating reality in MY world. In that respect I think Iron Man was more true to life. Why does he own a lambo? There are other cars that are just as fast and 10x more reliable... but the story is more interesting with the eye candy. I'm not talking "blond bimbo" here... but there's a pretty big gap between that and a chick that wouldn't turn my head at the produce counter... especially with lines like "and beautiful she is".

And frankly... if that's the case, then maybe they should give the average audience member some hidden reasons why she's so great.
 
MattinSTL said:
Billionaires don't have to make choices like that... there are plenty of high quality, high caliber women in the world... maybe not at your local starbucks... but there aren't many billionaires there either. It's a fallacy to think that men don't want hot women... look at who billionaires hook up with in real life. A pretty good barometer for simulating reality in MY world. In that respect I think Iron Man was more true to life. Why does he own a lambo? There are other cars that are just as fast and 10x more reliable... but the story is more interesting with the eye candy. I'm not talking "blond bimbo" here... but there's a pretty big gap between that and a chick that wouldn't turn my head at the produce counter... especially with lines like "and beautiful she is".
Click to expand...

The produce counter...LOL. I do agree that most most men would love some eye candy on their arm. But beauty is relative...You may not think Maggie is hot, but someone somewhere thinks that it just can't any better. But you do make good points. I thought she worked in the film. Now if I could only figure out how to make a billion dollars, My opinion might just change. TDK best of 08 so far.
 
Thanks for at least letting me share an opinion w/o biting my head off... seriously, even though I'm putting it out there and willing to take heat for it... I don't think my observation is quite as shallow as it sounds. Google "christian bale's girlfriend" and then do the same for aaron eckhart... um... pretty hot run of chicks for each no? Now type in "billionaire girlfriends"... I think you'll see my point.

I realize that this is a movie... and like I said... I loved the movie! I didn't have a problem with her acting or her role... but I just felt like there were two easy targets to shoot down... the hotness ratio of the couples... and the digital voice. I don't think that's a mean or shallow thing to say... it just is what it is. Movies are pictures... and cinematography is simply called photography in some circles... so being able to judge images in contrast to reality doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Again... I loved the movie... and I wish Heath would have been around to enjoy the accolades that are due him. By FAR my favorite Joker ever... by far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top