You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Just Saw The Dark Knight... **SPOILERS!!!**

Posted: Wed, 16th Jul 2008, 9:57pm

Post 1 of 176

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

WOW. With the amount of hype surrounding this movie, I expected to be at least a little let down. I expected infinite greatness... and, well...

The movie surpassed the hype. I saw it at an iMax pre-release for those who followed the viral marketing and I have not one complaint. The Joker was perfect, the script was brilliant, and visually the film was stunning.

WOW.

I have nothing more to say than this is the greatest movie of the year, or in recent memory for that matter
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 9:08am

Post 2 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I keep on hearing from people who say "my expectations were ridiculously high....and the movie surpassed them." So far, it does seem to be impervious to the usual pitfalls of hype.

The positive reviews it's getting, both from mainstream press and 'geek' press, is quite staggering. I've even had some mutterings of "best Batman story ever told."

Surely it can't be THAT good?

I guess I'll find out next week. biggrin

I actually randomly had a dream consisting of the first third of the movie the other night. I hope the real movie's as good as my dream, cos it was pretty cool.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 11:31am

Post 3 of 176

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Seeing it tonight at 10! I bought the soundtrack on Tuesday, and that already has blown my mind.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 3:01pm

Post 4 of 176

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Saw it last night as well, I agree with bugclimber!
Joker was perfect, opening sequence is awesome!

Been a while since I've posted but should be back around a bit more these days! smile

-MAGIC
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 3:11pm

Post 5 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Inevitably as more people see this film the topic will end up with spoilers, so I've changed its subject to warn people.

This can now be the main discussion topic for the film.

I'll be back next weekend with my own thoughts. wink
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 4:17pm

Post 6 of 176

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm seeing the 12:15 premiere tonight, im pumped smile
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 7:20pm

Post 7 of 176

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

This will be the first time I'm going to go to a midnight showing for a film. I just hope there won't be a ton of annoying nerds.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 7:49pm

Post 8 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Seriously, don't go to a midnight show if you don't want to run into annoying nerds.

For me, that's half the fun.

I'm going tonight at 12:01am, and I couldn't be more excited. I'll see it tonight for the midnight experience, and then again probably many more times for the actual "movie" experience. I'm pumped for the cheer moments, and the moments of dead silence in a theater that actually cares about what's going on.

So excited... did I mention that? razz
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 8:07pm

Post 9 of 176

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

yeah midnight shows are the best

I was at the midnight for SWep3 and all the crazies were out in full force hahaha

-MAGIC
Posted: Thu, 17th Jul 2008, 8:44pm

Post 10 of 176

Direktor

Force: 400 | Joined: 25th Dec 2007 | Posts: 30

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

I couldn't get tickets for Friday because they were already sold out sad but I did get tickets for Saturday at 3:00 in the imax! biggrin
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 12:37am

Post 11 of 176

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm seeing the midnight showing tonight and I cannot WAIT to see it again

I think I'll probably see it in the iMax at least one more time after this though...
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 1:06am

Post 12 of 176

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member




Going tonight...
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 4:46am

Post 13 of 176

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Just amazing. I am in awe of it.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 7:11am

Post 14 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Awesome, exceptional, extraordinary, magnificent, outstanding, preeminent, rare, remarkable, singular, towering.

That's all the thesaurus could find.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 9:05am

Post 15 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

So I just got back (it's 5:03am right now), after having a Dark Knight Victory Celebration Party...

I'll post more in depth thoughts later, but quite honestly, that was perhaps the best movie going experience of my life. I honestly can't sleep right now, that is how much this movie has affected me. I went in with certain expectations and they were blown away by a movie I was completely not expecting at all.

A++++++++++++++

It's actually a tragedy that this movie has any bad reviews period.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 9:25am

Post 16 of 176

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

It lived up to the hype, for sure. Especially Ledger.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 1:15pm

Post 17 of 176

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Waser wrote:

Especially Ledger.
For real. Top notch performance, and I feel like it would have been his greatest role even if he'd lived another 50 years. A truly rare performance.

I felt that the film moved a little TOO fast at some points, and there were a few things here and there that I'm sure will bug me in future viewings, but it's so sublimely crafted that the little things aren't worth thinking about at all. I remember how much I loved Batman Begins, and while it is a great movie, The Dark Knight lays it flat. This movie will be remembered for a long long time.

I want to write a book about this movie, but instead I'll just rattle off a few things that I thought really stood out (SPOILERS AHOY):

-Harvey Dent's destruction, and transformation into Two-Face. So utterly tragic, but so amazing to watch. They pulled it off so gracefully, and so brutally. Aaron Eckhart gets the coveted "Second Best Performance" award. Thumbs up on that one.

-The re-casting of Rachel. Why didn't they cast Maggie Gyllenhaal in the first place? She was so much better than Katie Holmes. Not only is she a knockout, but she's graceful and talented. I buy her as Bruce Wayne's love interest quite a lot more than Mrs. Cruise. Shame she won't be around for the next one.

-Batman with Glowing Eyes Action(tm). Holy crap, I hope the glowy eyes make another appearance. That looked SO cool.

-Every second of Joker screen time. This could have been a 45 minute movie about the Joker getting ready for his day, and it would still have been the best representation of the character the screen will likely ever see. To re-iterate, it's a truly rare performance, and it's a damn shame that it was Mr. Ledger's last, but he couldn't have picked a better final role.

5/5
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 1:56pm

Post 18 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Every second of Joker screen time.
[Spoilers!]

I don't think I've ever loved a villain so much in my life as the Joker. His character was so sadistically well played that it made me laugh as well as it creeped the hell out of me. "I'm going to make this pencil... disappear! Ta-Da!" It really does sadden me that Heath is gone, because this movie left me itching for more of his Joker. Damn, that's a shame.

Anyway, I give it a 10/10. There was a lot of content in this movie. Just tons, and it's hard to take it all in at once. They really squeezed all they could into it.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 2:13pm

Post 19 of 176

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

It really does sadden me that Heath is gone, because this movie left me itching for more of his Joker. Damn, that's a shame.
This is what I'm talking about. If he had lived, there would have been a push for him to continue the role in the next movie, and I feel like that might have lessened the greatness of this performance. He's like the James Dean of our generation. We'll always want more of him, but if we could have it, it wouldn't be as sweet.

sad
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 2:34pm

Post 20 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Probably my favorite movie of all time and the best movie to be made in my lifetime.

It was just awesome.

Its weird the jokers character is so sadistic so insane... yet you still laugh at what he's doing.

[spoiler]

Like when he blows up the hospital... did anyone else smirk or anything when the joker did the pencil trick, my theater yelled and clapped.

Favorite movie ever, Its also #4 on IMDB top 250 list.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 5:56pm

Post 21 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I had a rough time getting into the movie at first, but as soon as the pencil trick happened, I was 100% sold.

I just woke up and I had nightmares - not joking.

Full review eventually. smile
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 9:24pm

Post 22 of 176

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

eek

That the expression I've had on my face since 2 o' clock in the morning. This film was a masterpiece. Heath Ledger put Jack Nicholson's Joker to shame. I thought I'd feel bad about Ledger's character because of his death, but his performance made me hate the joker so much that I wasn't bothered at all.

Something that I found to be so cool about this movie was that it did not seem like a comic book film, but at the same time it featured Batman. I think this film just set the standard on how comic book-inspired films should be. It's kind of weird though that this movie was such incredibly different film than Batman Begins. I think that's why it was called The Dark Knight, because it was Batman movie but it was also much more than that. I actually think that it wouldn't matter if you never saw Batman Begins and saw The Dark Knight instead.

I've also never felt so attached to the characters in a superhero before this one.

Spoilers:
When the audience in the theater discovered that Jim Gordon was indeed alive, the theater exploded with cheering.

The tension was through the roof as well, such as the part where the joker had his knife on Rachel Dawes, or the scene on the two boats (I was sweating like crazy in scene).
/Spoilers

I have to say that I had a better movie theater experience seeing this film than when I saw Transformers. There's probably more stuff I can say about this film, but I don't think I really need to. If you haven't already seen it, just go to the theater now. My only issue I may have had would be the fact that Batman didn't have as much screen time as I would have liked, but the Joker's screen time pretty much made up for it.

Best. Comic Book Film. Ever.

The best film this year, and one of the best films I've ever seen. There have been some damn good movies this year!


I think the third installment has quite a bit to live up to.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 9:35pm

Post 23 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fantastic movie. I went and saw the midnight showing, and I was quite impressed. Easily the best movie I've seen this year, probably my favorite of all time. Ledger's performance was outstanding.
Posted: Fri, 18th Jul 2008, 10:16pm

Post 24 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Just got back.........it was a GREAT film.

Honestly, pacing, fights scenes, camerawork, everything was top notch.

HOWEVER,

I don't think it's the best comic book film of all time. It almost ties with Begins, but to me it just felt like the latter half of the original meshed with the good parts of Saw; which, while not a bad thing, does not warrant it as the best movie ever made.

That being said, I do think all the characters pulled through excellently. Ledger played the Joker perfectly, no doubt, but I think the 'zany' character was put through less strenuous acting feats than the likes of Aaron Eckhart, who really made Two-Face's transformation realistic and easier to swallow. Also, Gary Oldman pulled off one of the best performances of the ensemble, especially with the bits with Dent at the end. He was appropriately flawed. I could go on about the Joker, but to be honest his character was what you got: an invention of a serial killer, like a crazed Anton Chigurh.

Speaking of Coen movies, I loved the dark comedy in this film, something I normally am turned off by. The death by pencil was funny, so was even the breaking the pool stick in half and tossing it down. It did feel VEEEEEERY much like what made Saw stand apart from Seven (what with the tests and games), but luckily Nolan and Ledger made the concept their own, bringing it appropriately to fruition.

I'll write a heftier review later, but as it stands I liked this film. If there would have been no 'why is he running?' and 'he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one they need right now' voice over near the end, it wouldn't have been nearly as good a film.

9/10. It was awesome and lived up to my expectations exactly, but I think it lacked the heart and mystique of, say, Spiderman 2, which is widely hailed as (previously, I guess) the best superhero film of all time.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 2:19am

Post 25 of 176

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I've seen it twice now, and there's really not much for me to say except that it lived up to and surpassed my expectations (which I was afraid would not happen). Easily the best film I've seen so far this year and without a doubt the best comic book film I've ever seen.

5/5
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 2:23am

Post 26 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Anyone who thinks this is the best film of the year should honestly check out 'In Bruges'. biggrin TDK was a great film, I completely agree, but lacked the depth to prove 'the best' overall.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 3:15am

Post 27 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is the best film of the year should honestly check out 'In Bruges'. biggrin TDK was a great film, I completely agree, but lacked the depth to prove 'the best' overall.
While I haven't seen 'In Bruges', I can't help but doubting it would surpass the Dark Knight as the best film of the year. For me, at least.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 3:19am

Post 28 of 176

crazymonkey01

Force: 390 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 80

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Best. Movie. Ever.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 3:46am

Post 29 of 176

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Im not sure if this has been posted but take a look at the first movie title on this list of movies heath ledger is in.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005132/
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 3:52am

Post 30 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Haha, that's pretty funny.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 4:46am

Post 31 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FanTAStic.

This film is honestly going it my top 20 of all time, and Ledger's performance is going in my personal top 10 favorite performances in a film. Goddamn. This film was damn near perfect.

Only 2 problems or inconsistencies sort of: Gotham City felt more like Chicago and less like Gotham City. Gotham city was well portrayed in Batman Begins. However, TDK >>>>> BB regardless, that's just one aspect. However, the most important thing to me in this film was the Joker, and had Gotham City been more dark and unreal, I think it would have taken away from his character, if that makes sense. I suppose I'm thinking more of specific parts and scenes with places that aren't depicted in TDK. I'll have to give Batman Begins another watch through though, I haven't seen it since it came out on retail. So this "problem" didn't bother me about THIS film, it more bothered me about the two films together.

And then there was some kind of hole in the script at some point, and it involved the Joker. I noticed it when I was watching the film, but forgot what it was by the end (this "hole" was near the beginning). It wasn't dialogue or story oriented, it was something with the action, or something he was pulling off. When I watch it again I'll refind it and probably not bump the thread because I'll forget. But maybe not.

ALSO: I saw this in a theater in Universal Studios Orlando, I was here for college orientation. Theater wasn't filled, the sound was fantastic, and screen was massive. Comfortable seats too. No one obnoxious in the audience, though I hate when people clap during the film (you can guess the part they clapped at, I believe someone else mentioned their theater doing the same, I'm keeping this post spoiler free).

Last edited Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 4:49am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 4:49am

Post 32 of 176

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I've seen In Bruge, many times. It is a great movie, but it isn't perfect, and I like TDK better.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 3:42pm

Post 33 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Gotham City felt more like Chicago and less like Gotham City.
Hehe, you must know your cities, because it was actually shot in Chicago- both films actually. My aunt works downtown there and she got a memo about the building across the street telling everyone that worked around there to ignore police cars and such because they were filming a scene in Batman. She showed me the building, and now that I think about it, it's the bank in the first scene!
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 4:52pm

Post 34 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:



I don't think it's the best comic book film of all time. It almost ties with Begins, but to me it just felt like the latter half of the original meshed with the good parts of Saw; which, while not a bad thing, does not warrant it as the best movie ever made.
Oh stop trying to be different - this movie took Batman Begins, bent it over, and... well... you figure out the rest! razz
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 4:57pm

Post 35 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Honestly, I'm not trying to be different. I absolutely, positively LOVED The Dark Knight. I think it's almost the 'perfect' movie for what it did.

However, I think Begins was more inspiring just by virtue of the subject matter (someone cleaning up the streets) and The Dark Knight is more of an action movie. It's fine to be an action movie, especially when you have well-drawn characters. But unlike Begins, which didn't rely upon any fighting sequences, The Dark Knight, at some points at least, did.

Let me be clear: I'm not disparaging the movie at all. Just, as a HUGE purveyor of cinema and theater movie showings, I can surely say that The Dark Knight is, definitely, not the best film of the year: the subject matter just simply doesn't allow for it.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 7:48pm

Post 36 of 176

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

**Throws popcorn at Ben**

Boooo

We get it tho, you've said the same thing like 3-4 times already in your last posts ha.


This movie is the best comicbook film today, no doubt. I can't believe how good it was. I got to see it last night in the iMax at Universal with all the nerds and fanboys such as myself (best way to see a movie). Everything that has been mentioned thus far I totally agree with (Minus Ben) so I'm not gonna go into detail but I do have to bring this up:

*Spoiler*

Because I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet. When Batman flipped Jokers truck... damn.... AND


AAAND


When he did that turn around on his bike right afterwards. You know, the one where he did like a wheelie and turned his bike around... I LOST it when that happened and my theater exploded with cheers and hollering.

*End Spoiler*


Damn this movie was the best... Kills Batman Begins... DAMN!...
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 8:27pm

Post 37 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Heh, I agree with CX3. Best superhero film ever.
SPOILER:

Did anyone else find the pencil magic trick funny? My friend and I were the only ones laughing at that, so I'm not sure if we have a sick sense of humor, or if everyone else has no sense of humor.

END SPOILER
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 8:46pm

Post 38 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I busted out laughing when the pencil trick happened, It also made the Joker my favorite character of all time... Heath Ledgers joker of course... Nicholsen must hate how most people think Ledger destroyed his joker.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 8:56pm

Post 39 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

Heh, I agree with CX3. Best superhero film ever.
SPOILER:

Did anyone else find the pencil magic trick funny? My friend and I were the only ones laughing at that, so I'm not sure if we have a sick sense of humor, or if everyone else has no sense of humor.

END SPOILER
My entire theater burst out in a mixture of laughter, applause, and "OWWWW"'s.

That was the moment that solidified my love of the movie.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 11:04pm

Post 40 of 176

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Wow...this is definitely the best movie I've seen all year. Even though I really needed to go to the bathroom halfway through the film, I actually wished the movie were an hour longer because it was just incredible.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jul 2008, 11:56pm

Post 41 of 176

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

How does the subject manner not allow for TDK to be the best film of the year? Because its a sequel? Because its a comic book movie? I don't think it is fair to pidgeon-hole it like that.

IMO, the film presents ideas and themes that are far more interesting and powerful than anything else this year, including In Bruge. There is no mistaking that In Bruge is a fantastic film that everyone should see for its clever script and brilliant acting, but I would say the same thing for TDK and then go on to say it is reasonable to rank it higher for the scale of its brilliant acting and clever script.

I think Ledger should get nominated, and I think he should be competing against Brendan Gleeson for that award. So, I think it isn't fair to say it definitly isn't the best movie of the year. It may be a summer blockbuster, but its just as classy as the more indie In Bruge or any other film.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 12:17am

Post 42 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Hello beautiful

# 1 !!!!!!!!!

Last edited Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 12:35am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 12:24am

Post 43 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'll stick this one to PMs from here on out, but emotion and drama in a comic book movie can be gripping and powerful, yes- consider V for Vendetta- but the deeper meanings in movies is what makes them potent and lasting.

The Shawshank Redemption portrays the tenacity of the human spirit, The Godfather presents the depth of the ties of family. And, this year at least, while The Dark Knight certainly hits some heartstrings and promotes values and raises questions; it still does little to throttle society with any challenges or question parts of humanity, which is what higher-caliber films are made to do.

I'm not saying Nolan isn't capable of this by any means: The Prestige is a testament to such a 'deeper meaning', which is attempts to draw the line between humanity and obsession. I'm just saying that The Dark Knight doesn't have the same deeper meaning on the same level simply because the way the story is set up it is not allowed to. You have to introduce the new characters and establish the intricacies of the story in such a vast, universal film, and there's henceforth just not enough time to ground down a deeping meaning.

Comparatively, and I'm not using this as my prime example, just a good example, the likes of In Bruges, despite witty dialogue and well-drawn characters, solely dedicate themselves to pushing towards meaning and truth; namely an exposition of the ravaging torment of killing, or something along those lines. On a more artistic scale, a movie like The Fall, while extravagant and visual, spends probably about half of its time weaving a subplot of assisted suicide, which also beckons consideration of the depths of human emotion and the source of such misanthropic motivation.

As I said, I can continue this elsewhere. And still, I absolutely, without a doubt LOVED The Dark Knight. But for several reasons, it is not the best film of the year. And this is not simply because it's a comic book movie. That'd be a largely ignorant assumption.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:15am

Post 44 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Both sides of this debate are throwing the phrase "best film" around and yet know one has mentioned the subjectivity of such a thing.

We are not the Academy. A film doesn't have to have a lasting look on society and humanity to be "the best" in our eyes. For you, Ben, that might be what does it for you. Then for others, it doesn't need to excel in that field for it to be the best. And then others may not even care about the deeper meaning and look at "the best" film as the film with the coolest action.

No one is looking at this from the eyes of the Academy but you. You may see eye-to-eye with them (I guarantee TDK has no chance of winning Best Picture), but others don't.

Rebourne wrote:

Hello beautiful

# 1 !!!!!!!!!
You clearly don't know much about the IMDB "top" list. Plenty of films are at the top when they are in theaters. Those are user ratings, not reviews or anything official. Look at the number of votes. It will drop down a bit rather quickly. And the internet loves backlash, so at least a little of that will contribute to a fall. So, er, it's not a big deal really.

Last edited Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:19am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:18am

Post 45 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hmm. Wow, this is surprising. I actually can see where Ben is coming from. smile Even though I disagree that The Dark Knight does not have a deeper meaning (Begins certainly does: Overcoming fear), but I think The Dark Knights deeper meaning was this: (Spoilers) How far will you go, how many people will die, and how much will you give to stop a force? I think this, because of Alfred's mentioning of "enduring" along with the fact that Harvey Dent wasn't prepared to give everything to stop a force, especially a loved one. Actually, Alfred usually revealed all of these deeper meanings in what he said. He told Bruce to "know his limits" which ties into what I thought was the deeper meaning. Hell, another one was when he gave Bruce the analogy of how he stopped the thief in Burma: Burning down the forest.

Thoughts?
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:22am

Post 46 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

Hmm. Wow, this is surprising. I actually can see where Ben is coming from. smile Even though I disagree that The Dark Knight does not have a deeper meaning (Begins certainly does: Overcoming fear), but I think The Dark Knights deeper meaning was this: (Spoilers) How far will you go, how many people will die, and how much will you give to stop a force? I think this, because of Alfred's mentioning of "enduring" along with the fact that Harvey Dent wasn't prepared to give everything to stop a force, especially a loved one. Actually, Alfred usually revealed all of these deeper meanings in what he said. He told Bruce to "know his limits" which ties into what I thought was the deeper meaning. Hell, another one was when he gave Bruce the analogy of how he stopped the thief in Burma: Burning down the forest.

Thoughts?
Ben never said it didn't have meaning. He's more looking at the film on the "best film" scale in terms of: "will this film impact society and be appreciated for years to come?" Just look at past best pictures.

And my thoughts on that are in my previous post, as I don't think anyone in this thread is looking at the film like that when they say it's the best. Most people simply don't need that, even if they appreciate it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:50am

Post 47 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Serpent wrote:


You clearly don't know much about the IMDB "top" list. Plenty of films are at the top when they are in theaters. Those are user ratings, not reviews or anything official. Look at the number of votes. It will drop down a bit rather quickly. And the internet loves backlash, so at least a little of that will contribute to a fall. So, er, it's not a big deal really.
Hehe... okay I've never seen any movie go to the #1 spot even when it first came out but none the less I was being sarcastic to ben and frosty's debate about it being the "best film" so...
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 5:55am

Post 48 of 176

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I have to say I enjoyed it. I thought the acting was superb and the fight sequences were awesome.

SPOILER:

From a comic book stand point I would have to wonder did two face survive his fall? I think that if I find out he is actually dead next movie I will be a little dissapointed. However it can't be that bad if he truly is dead.

Also I loved how Batman stepped up and took responsibility for the two faces actions instead of dent taking the fall.

END OF SPOILER:

I have to admit this movie definatley got me thinking. I definatley think that they had a deeper meaning.

FANTASTIC MOVIE!!!!
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 6:10am

Post 49 of 176

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The only thing about the movie that was an honest disappointment was the short and not scary at all Scare Crow. He's always been one of my favorite villains and they smucked him out so quickly and with the film ending with the tazer hitting his face at the end of the last movie I was hoping the mask was stuck on his face or something but if there was anything at all wrong with this movie that would have been it. In my opinion of course.

They even had the same actor and it still was such a deflation of the character. But other than that this film was not only lived up and in allot of ways surpassed it predecessor but was done the way a real film should be done.

All the aspects of filmmaking were perfectly done in this movie you didn't even have to see the first one to enjoy it.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 8:15am

Post 50 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Ben never said it didn't have meaning. He's more looking at the film on the "best film" scale in terms of: "will this film impact society and be appreciated for years to come?" Just look at past best pictures.
To say a few final things, I just think that The Dark Knight, while a superb effort in both filmmaking and storytellinm is overrated across the boards simply because of what kind of movie it is. I'm not going by what the 'Oscars want', just what I took to qualify as a 'best' movie of the year (or all time). And yes, I know there's HUGE amounts of subjectivity involved, but surely you must admit that without at least a little objectivity there'd be no point in rating movies at all.

Let me give you a good example, too, that supports my viewpoint and refutes your previous statement. Take two films: Iron Man and The Weatherman. One is a pitch-perfect superhero film, the other is a flawed drama that hasn't lasted and doesn't change society. However, while many would pick Iron Man as a favorite because of its entertainment value, it's likely not the best. This is an important distinction to make.

If anyone wants to continue discussion along these lines, please PM me or hit me up via Facebook Chat, because I don't want to have to delineate my whole argument here for it not to even be considered. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 9:23am

Post 51 of 176

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

If anyone wants to continue discussion along these lines, please PM me or hit me up via Facebook Chat
I think we're good... ha


best comicbook movie
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 1:17pm

Post 52 of 176

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Haven't seen this yet and possibly won't seeing as the cinemas are prettys cramped up but I want to mention one thing...a pencil is a spoiler!? biggrin
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 4:33pm

Post 53 of 176

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

B3N wrote:

Haven't seen this yet and possibly won't seeing as the cinemas are prettys cramped up but I want to mention one thing...a pencil is a spoiler!? biggrin
Trust us, you'll understand once you see it. wink

But yeah, this was an amazing movie. By far one of my favorite movies I've seen recently. In fact, really the only reason I wanted to see this was for the Joker, and it didn't let me down. smile In my opinion it was the opposite of most movies like it. Most superhero movies you think it would be cool to be the hero, this was a movie where I must say I thought the villian was much much cooler then the hero. wink
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 9:44pm

Post 54 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Saw this at the best theater in Arizona, and DAMN IT. The sound designers were brilliant on this one.


Overall, the movie was the best comic book film I've ever seen. (Notice that I didn't say "Superhero movie"... Because Batman doesn't have any superpowers, and thus, like Ironman, it doesn't fall into line with "Superhero")


The Cinematography, the editing nuances, and the subtext sold this film for me through-and-through. Oh yeah, and the acting (Minus Maggie, who was quite less interesting then Katie)

*******SPOILERS*********************************************

Chris Nolan and his brother are absolutely fantastic at writing films together. It's almost unfair. The ways they found to integrate characters and interweave such a wide variety of components into a film is nothing short of impressive.

Things like:

1. Getting Two-face and Joker in the same room together for such an intense scene (Very cool to see such well known villains interacting)

2. Integrating the coin with two-face. (This could have been hokey, but they pulled it off perfectly, and the coin being good on both sides, then getting scarred (And mirroring Dent's change) was really brilliant)

3. The Joker making up his scar stories, which we don't realize until he tells his second story about them give a nice crazy edge

4. The fact that they brought back Scarecrow for a short scene was really cool, as he devolved into a two-bit criminal, and felt very "Comic book" that he still roams Gotham.



I also loved the relentlessness of it. They barely pulled any punches violence wise, which kept me on the edge of my seat with the amount of sudden killing.




The parts that really sucked? Yep. They were both CGI.

1. When Batman flips the semitruck, then rides up the wall and flips around, I audibly said "WHAT?!". That was ridiculously cheesy, and they really shouldn't have added it.

2. When Jokers thugs shoot those wires across the buildings, which takes down the police helicopter. VERY OBVIOUS CGI. I wish they would have just shown a lot less of it by cutting to other shots from street level...
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 10:00pm

Post 55 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:



The parts that really sucked? Yep. They were both CGI.

1. When Batman flips the semitruck, then rides up the wall and flips around, I audibly said "WHAT?!". That was ridiculously cheesy, and they really shouldn't have added it.

Really? Because I thought it was... awesome...
confused
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 10:04pm

Post 56 of 176

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

DAMMMMMNNN...
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 10:29pm

Post 57 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Augh, you beat me by thirty seconds... I have the same link and everything...
Posted: Sun, 20th Jul 2008, 11:15pm

Post 58 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I just saw the movie again. I couldn't find a place to park and theater I was in was still packed.

I loved every second of the movie again... except I did realize that a few things could have been cut including -

SPOILER:

The entire trip to Hong Kong - the sonar system could have been setup in a much more economical way, as well as having everything important in that scene take place in Gotham. It was 20 minutes that definitely had no purpose.

Nevertheless, it is still an outstanding film. And I don't know what the hell you are talking about Bryce, the bike flip was awesome. I do agree with you about the helicopter though, and more awkardly, when the Tumbler runs headlong into that truck, shoving it into the ceiling. That was awesome, but obviously CG. The emergence of the Batpod itself was utterly outstanding though, and brought cheers to the entire theater.

END SPOILER:

I'll probably see it a third time (in IMAX, if possible), and maybe even a fourth.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 1:05am

Post 59 of 176

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

i saw it again today. when the fake batman's body hit the window infront of the mayor this 20 yaer old woman screamed for at least 3 seconds!
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 2:11am

Post 60 of 176

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

this by far the best movie of the year!
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 2:54am

Post 61 of 176

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Bryce007 wrote:


4. The fact that they brought back Scarecrow for a short scene was really cool, as he devolved into a two-bit criminal, and felt very "Comic book" that he still roams Gotham.
It seemed a lot of critics felt that scene was pointless, but I agree with you. I thought it helped set up Joker as someone you should fear more.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 3:27am

Post 62 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've never been to an Imax theater and I'm trying to figure out what makes it so great. So far a I got is that there's a huge screen, but is that it? Is it worth paying more money and driving farther to see it in Imax or is not that big or a deal. I've watched movies on computer screens with I loved, is a normal theater really that degrading?
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 4:47am

Post 63 of 176

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

ben3308 wrote:

If there would have been no 'why is he running?' and 'he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one they need right now' voice over near the end, it wouldn't have been nearly as good a film.
That's putting a lot of weight on a short segment biggrin

Actually, I felt the voice over was unnecessary..... because the film spent 2.5 hours connecting those dots, and so Gordon didn't have to go through and reconnect them for me. With the exception of Adaptation (and some other movies), I tend to dislike voice overs that have to hand-hold me to the message. Just present the story, and move on wink

But I'm glad you brought up In Bruges. I have yet to see that film and am reminded now to check it out.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:04am

Post 64 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I completely and utterly disagree.

The voice-over works on a better, more sophisticated level in The Dark Knight (just as it does in Nolan's Batman Begins: "why do we fall?") because Gary Oldman's short dialogue with his son is quintessential to defining what has culminated through the entire movie. We know that Batman is willing to take on the burden of the city along with its spite, but we need Oldman's words to confirm that it is a necessary and not self-indulgent move. His few sentences with his son aim to characterize Batman's plight and sum up not just why Batman is doing what he is doing, but why his actions, in particular, are necessary for the city as a whole. It's not enough that Batman states that he'll take the blame: we need considerable, spoken justification for so bold a move, and Oldman's words do that.

What's more, the reason this is told in a voice over is because it makes for more succinct, more thought-through filmmaking. We see Oldman talking to his son when he says this, but other images, such as Batman riding off and Gordon breaking the bat signal, are an appropriate means of summing up the story and foreshadowing the future- a wise move in a franchise as successful as this.

So when Nolan gives you a scene laden with a voice-over, it's not because he's trying to spoon feed you the information: it's because he cares about ending the movie with grace and concision and laying the groundwork for another possible movie.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:40am

Post 65 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well said, Mr. Adams.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 7:23am

Post 66 of 176

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Well said, but....


....it still wasn't necessary for me from an artistic standpoint, because even if Gordon had said something random like "Oh, he's doing it for the chicks", I would have instinctively felt that his explanation was wrong given the rest of the film that preceded it. I would simply cast his remarks as post traumatic stress, because I trust what I've witnessed versus what someone (real or fictional smile ) says I witnessed . So that's why I was just saying that it wasn't a make-or-break speech for me: the 2.5 hours preceding it were the make-or-break.

Now from a commercial / common-sense standpoint, I absolutely agree that it was the right way to end a Batman film, because it did nicely sum up the story and foreshadow the inevitable next film. I mean, I don't think general audiences would have appreciated it if Nolan ended on a scene with a baby silently floating in outer space.

Yet from an artistic standpoint, I would have had Gordon too busy hugging his nearly-deceased family to speak wink
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 8:17am

Post 67 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Just saw it and loved it. Not my exact favorite movie of the year thus far but a very close second. In my eyes the worst thing about this movie is Ledgers Joker somewhat undeservingly stealing praise from the rest of the top notch work on the project. To me, while Ledger had a very impressive take on the character, it was Aaron Eckharts subtle, harrowing, and gradually haunting Harvey Dent that was the standout of the movie. A real shame Ledgers Joker is so impressive even from a surface view, as I think if people thought about it theyd see the movies all-star ensemble is unfairly treated for being equally-impressive. The Joker was absolutely mesmerizing, but the movie is made a masterwork by more than that, and it has -stupidly, Im sure- annoyed me to see such fine work on all cylinders discounted to the genius of one actor.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:12pm

Post 68 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Just saw it and loved it. Not my exact favorite movie of the year thus far but a very close second. In my eyes the worst thing about this movie is Ledgers Joker somewhat undeservingly stealing praise from the rest of the top notch work on the project. To me, while Ledger had a very impressive take on the character, it was Aaron Eckharts subtle, harrowing, and gradually haunting Harvey Dent that was the standout of the movie. A real shame Ledgers Joker is so impressive even from a surface view, as I think if people thought about it theyd see the movies all-star ensemble is unfairly treated for being equally-impressive. The Joker was absolutely mesmerizing, but the movie is made a masterwork by more than that, and it has -stupidly, Im sure- annoyed me to see such fine work on all cylinders discounted to the genius of one actor.
Yeah, I'll agree with you there. As badass as the Joker was, I found myself loving Two-Face even more which is a shame that

SPOILER

he dies, because I was really hoping for him to be the main focus of the third film. I can still keep my fingers crossed though. The height that Harvey fell from looks like mysteriously the same rough height that Batman dropped the mob boss from earlier, stating obviously "a fall from this height wouldn't kill me". I can think of no other reason for that scene to play out the way it did than to set up the fact that Harvey could have survived. I mean, Batman survived the same fall, didn't he?

I can only hope he's not dead, because it seems to me that they've used up all the credibly realistic Batman villains already. Who's left? The Riddler? A Joker clone and very cliche "elaborate scheme" villain. Mr. Freeze? Please... Poison Ivy? Don't think so... The Penguin? HELL NO!

END SPOILER


That being said, don't undercut Ledger's performance for everyone else's sake. I found myself loving his scenes the most, and the second time I saw it I kept waiting in anticipation of his scenes.


SPOILER

Did anyone else feel a twinge of regret when the Joker tells Batman that "you and I are destined to fight like this forever"? That was only the second time in the film I thought of Ledger's death (the first being the scene where the gang brings in "the body of the Joker", and he plays dead). Made me really sad that we'd never see Heath's amazing take on the character again.

END SPOILER
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:34pm

Post 69 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'll have to also agree that Aaron Eckhart's performance was spectacular, but not better than Heath's. Like Evman, the second time I saw it I was anticipating his appearances the most. Also, to those who pointed out the "flawed" CGI, I honest to god didn't noticed any flaws. I usually have a keen eye for such things.

Another thing, this movie was pretty damn long. I have a feeling there will be an extended version. What I really want to see is a behind the scenes with Ledger. Anyway, I will most likely see this in IMAX this weekend. I'm really excited. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:36pm

Post 70 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Evman wrote:


he dies, because I was really hoping for him to be the main focus of the third film. I can still keep my fingers crossed though. The height that Harvey fell from looks like mysteriously the same rough height that Batman dropped the mob boss from earlier, stating obviously "a fall from this height wouldn't kill me". I can think of no other reason for that scene to play out the way it did than to set up the fact that Harvey could have survived. I mean, Batman survived the same fall, didn't he?
Spoiler

Harvey's coin also landed heads up (clean side)... so he's most likely going to be in the third movie.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 5:47pm

Post 71 of 176

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Wow, I didn't notice that, interesting...
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 6:15pm

Post 72 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

SPOILER

Am I the only one who visibly saw Aaron Eckhart breathing in the first shot of him after Gordon runs down to him? He's sprawled out, jacket open, and you can very clearly see him breathing in and out from the movement of the wrinkles on his shirt. The camera even pans into him, and whether this is either a very overlooked blooper or a deliberate thing, I dunno.

But on both the first and second viewing, I saw him breathing, quite clearly actually. I can't believe this wasn't caught by the filmmakers.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 6:52pm

Post 73 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

THIS ENTIRE POST CONTAINS SPOILERZ

ben3308 wrote:

SPOILER

Am I the only one who visibly saw Aaron Eckhart breathing in the first shot of him after Gordon runs down to him? He's sprawled out, jacket open, and you can very clearly see him breathing in and out from the movement of the wrinkles on his shirt. The camera even pans into him, and whether this is either a very overlooked blooper or a deliberate thing, I dunno.

But on both the first and second viewing, I saw him breathing, quite clearly actually. I can't believe this wasn't caught by the filmmakers.
I *thought* I saw that and then studied him for the rest of the scene. He may have breathed at the very beginning, but definitely not after that, because I was thinking about that. I suppose I'll just *have* to go see it a second time to see whether or not he breathed at the beginning. smile

I bet he'll be back though.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 6:59pm

Post 74 of 176

Jrad

Force: 230 | Joined: 30th Apr 2005 | Posts: 478

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

SPOILER

There is a thought going around, that Harvey Dent died, but Two Face is still alive.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 7:30pm

Post 75 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think my thing is to me a better actor is someone who can draw me in and make such a drastic shift so subtlely and convincingly, as opposed to someone who can act completely wild and outlandish the entire movie. Undercut Ledgers outstanding performance to bring attention to the others? Never. But I dont want to see the opposite happen, either. To me, Eckart very narrowly but still clearly out-acted the cast for the role he was given. He made me believe in Harvey Dent.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 7:51pm

Post 76 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I agree with Atom here. Almost anyone can act wild and crazy in a movie, but it takes a real actor to do whatever Atom said Aaron did.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 8:06pm

Post 77 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While Aaron Eckhart also did an amazing job as Harvey Dent, and he was a bit overshadowed by Heath Ledger's performance, I wouldn't say he did a better job. RodyPolis, I don't think anyone could have pulled off the Joker like Heath Ledger did (who is also a 'real actor'). He didn't just run in front of the camera and 'act wild and crazy'. The character was far too deep for that.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 8:31pm

Post 78 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah please don't undercut Ledger's performance by calling it "acting crazy".

Ledger brought a depth to the character that is hard to express exactly. He actually became a psychopath, not just crazy, but insane. He made it so believable that it was chilling. Don't anyone dare dismiss it as just "acting crazy", because it's so much more than that...
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 9:33pm

Post 79 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Another thing, that I don't think I mentioned earlier....

Maggie Gyllenhaal brings down the movie for me.

Why? Well, her acting is fine, and she's still got that same smarmy, smirky look that Katie Holmes had; but her rendition of Rachel Dawes- while possibly deeper and more interesting that the previous incarnation- seemed like a 'Maggie Gyllenhaal's version' of the character rather than the character itself.

If Rachel Dawes is exclusive to Nolan's Batman universe, and the only other traces of character we have of her are in the first film, portrayed by Katie Holmes, then stick with that character! As far as I see it, although hindsight is 20/20 and Nolan (and his co-writing brother, reminds me of a duo I know biggrin) may have wanted to right a few wrongs from the original Rachel, once you establish the character, that's it: the deal is done.

So when Maggie Gyllenhaal comes along and acts more 'full-toothed smile' at every little thing she hears (you know, that condescending grin when she hears things outlandish or wrong, transplanted from her characters in Stranger than Fiction and even Donnie Darko. she keeps the same on-and-off smiling expression from after Dent is assaulted in court to even when she is in the room with the oil drums and the phone) it's a far cry from the more reserved, more timid character played by Katie Holmes. And while such nuances of Gyllenhaal's acting are perhaps commendable and positive on a scale of proper acting, they don't add up appropriately for the character of Rachel.

When Holmes realized she was in a predicament in the first film, she was, frankly, scared shitless. ('This is where we make the medicine...') Comparatively, even when correcting for between-movies character development, when Gyllenhaal is tied up in a room where death is nearly certain (I know they're coming for me, but I don't want them to), she's remorseful/hopeful/scared and a whole plethora of emotions, but it doesn't fit well enough into who Rachel really already was. I understand that the new film wanted to put more weight on the character because they had a better actress, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the right thing to do.

The movie required a different actress, I understand that. It required and evolution of the character, I get that too. But what Maggie Gyllenhaal does to make a character 'all her own' is unnecessary given that the character was actually already established through nuances in Katie Holmes' acting, which, despite criticism, was not bad.

That's the only substantial thing that kept the film from a solid 10/10 for me: a flaw in character development and portrayal. If you have the chance to go back and watch the film again, listen in particular to the scene where Alfred reads the letter and Gyllenhaal's voice overlaps the reading. Her words, written, are important, but the tone she says them with are lifeless and insubstantial.

This, in particular, just felt like the actor doing what they were going to do, even under stringent direction. Nolan's presence obviously guides the character, but, in retrospect, I think the film would have been better off if it were able to stick with Holmes.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 9:48pm

Post 80 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I agree with you Ben, while Maggie certainly is a better actress than Katie, she still didn't fit quite well with me.
Posted: Mon, 21st Jul 2008, 10:05pm

Post 81 of 176

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

I think you're absolutely right about Gyllenhaal's Dawes, and I couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent critique.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 1:15am

Post 82 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I totally agree about Maggie Gyllenhaal's Dawes, Ben. Something didn't fit right with me when it came to that actress, and you just put it to words.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 1:17am

Post 83 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Gyllenhaal didnt bother me at all...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 1:31am

Post 84 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Think about this:

Christian Bale had a career high playing insane in "American Psycho"

Michael Cain had a career high playing insane in "Dressed to kill"

Gary Oldman had a career high playing insane in "Leon the professional"


I bet there was a lot of pressure on Ledger to play a great psycho, considering...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 2:08am

Post 85 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not to mention Gary Oldman playing Satan in Beat the Devil, a terrorist in Air Force One, and the serial killer in Hannibal. And that's just naming a few. biggrin

I still think Aaron Eckhart held the movie together, and that his acting was more challenging and more apt than Ledger's, but only because his character allowed it to be that way.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 2:26am

Post 86 of 176

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

ben3308 wrote:

I still think Aaron Eckhart held the movie together, and that his acting was more challenging and more apt than Ledger's, but only because his character allowed it to be that way.
Here's my thoughts on this...

(THIS WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS)

As an actor, I can tell you that Heath's character creation was probably a hell of a lot harder than Aaron's. As someone mentioned before, Ledger wasn't just "acting all crazy". If you look back at the movie, and just watch Ledger closely, all the little nuances that he created for the Joker come out. It's part of the reason the character is so well-received.. all these little things that you only really subconsciously notice unless you are purposely looking for them. It's not the scary/silly voice alone, it's the changing pitches and timbre of it. The walk, the way he hangs his head, the little things that just his eyes say. The little tick he had where he licked his lips. How he postured himself and placed his shoulders.

In fact, one of the best things he does is give one look. After he realizes that the ferries are not going to explode, and that his plan based on human nature fails, he has this quick look that is a mix of surprise, disappointment, and sadness, and it even brought another level to the character that shows he is more than just pure id. And you can almost get the feeling that he doesn't want the responsibility of blowing up the ferries; he was threatening to do it, but he might not have truly wanted to. And now that his plan failed, and he discovered that he really WOULD have to do it himself, he hesitates. And that look he gives, along with that little bit of hesitation... it speaks volumes not only about the character himself, but the depth that Ledger went into in order to make that possible.

So, uh... Aaron Eckhart was good. But not THAT good.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 2:53am

Post 87 of 176

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I agree BackOfTheHearse

Ledgers performance is so much more impressive than Eckhart (Granted, yes Eckhart played a great role but come on). I'm lost on where people are seeing Eckhart out performing Ledger. How?

As an actor myself, I completely agree on the fact that Heath's character creation was a hell of a lot harder than Aaron's - with a capital hell. The character of Harvey Dent/Two Face seems pretty straight forward. Meaning -- Looking at the script, if they would have casted anyone else, I think it wouldn't have been a long shot off from what Eckhart did with the character. I couldn't say the same for Ledger's Joker. That sort of performance isn't already given to you in the script. That's creation.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 3:51am

Post 88 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think for me Ledgers performance, much like Javier Bardems Anton Chigurh for many, is less mesmerizing when muddled with such high, high anticipation and near-ridiculous hype. Warranted or not. I also think Rody took my statement out of context. What I mean to say is, with a character like the Joker an actor has an endless list of ways to play it. For Ledger, it was hell- but its a version he controls. A take on the characters voice, cadences, nuances, etc. that were bound to what he decided. I was very impressed, but moreso with Ledgers creation than the way he acted it, perse. Im typing my previous posts and this one from an old non-qwerty pad, so forgive my wording.

Last edited Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 4:02am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 4:02am

Post 89 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well put BotH and CX3, eloquently said. I was thinking all of that when reading this thread, just didn't know how to say it.
Also, Ben/Atom: we get it. That is all.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 5:30am

Post 90 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Haha. Im in Vail and Bens in Austin. Its funny how on-point we are with eachothers thoughts even then. Oh, and I do completely agree with you, Chris. It was an amazing creation.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 5:08pm

Post 91 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Speaking of batman, I found this Tumbler Transformer so here it is. I don't know what kind of person spends time doing that kind of stuff but I thought it was cool
http://www.jesterpictures.com/jolin/photoshops/tumbler/tumblerhi.jpg
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jul 2008, 9:16pm

Post 92 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

I just got back from seeing again but this time in IMAX... it was neat and all but I enjoyed it much more in a traditional theater. After leaving the IMAX I felt like throwing up the entire drive home...
Posted: Thu, 24th Jul 2008, 2:07am

Post 93 of 176

DanielMaher

Force: 247 | Joined: 22nd Jul 2008 | Posts: 27

Member

God I loved this film!
If Heath Ledger doesn't get an oscar for his performance, I don't know who should. That movie was truly amazing and is without a doubt the greatest superhero film of all time! I am still in awe of it.
Posted: Thu, 24th Jul 2008, 4:57pm

Post 94 of 176

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Just saw it, and it matched my expectations. Heath Ledger was (of course) amazing. I was also impressed with Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Michael Caine.

I would have loved the movie so much more had it just been a Batman vs. Joker/Two-Face story without all the subplots (what's up with the trip to China?). I'll also be really disappointed if Two-Face is actually dead, because then it would feel like Venom all over again. I think my overall likability of this film will be affected by what happens in the third film. And at this point, I don't think they even know which direction to take. Who will be the villain in the third film? There's obviously a problem with the Joker, but Two-Face is a possibility, although it would defeat what Batman/Gordon did at the end of this film. I think any other villain would be kind of lame.

So overall, an excellent film... and my second-favorite of the year so far.

9.5/10
Posted: Thu, 24th Jul 2008, 6:13pm

Post 95 of 176

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

You surprised me Jawajohnny. I thought you said you would hate this movie. razz

Oh, and I'm going to see this movie again tonight. Stoked.
Posted: Thu, 24th Jul 2008, 9:31pm

Post 96 of 176

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just got back from seeing this movie. IT WAS TRUELY AMAZING.

It was more than I had expected. Truly the best film of 2008, and deserves 1st place on IMDb's Top 250 movies list.

I will probably go see it again, and maybe once more.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jul 2008, 12:40am

Post 97 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just got back from seeing it and it was great. I liked how Scarecrow had his little part. And all the fake Batmans were cool but I felt sorry for them.

Spoiler
The magic trick was awesome I was expecting the pencil to go through the dudes head, but I thought the Joker would throw it.
The saddest part in the movie for me was when they killed that fake batman. Then when they showed the video of them doing it to him. Cause he was just trying to help Batman in a way but...so sad. I missed Katie. I just hate when they change characters in sequels. The joker was awesome. When they finally got him I was like "in you face you SOB"
I have some questions though.
What was bruce gonna do on his Lamborghini? He just road it then nothing happened.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jul 2008, 1:10am

Post 98 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bruce got in his Lamborghini to go and try and protect Reese. He couldn't go out in the day as Batman because, well...that'd be stupid. Batman is strictly night-time stuff, unless it's uber convert. Following a truck in the day would be too obvious and would make Batman too susceptible to attack.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jul 2008, 8:51am

Post 99 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

This FINALLY came out in the UK last night.

Remarkably, it actually exceeded my expectations, which is a little ridiculous considering how high they were. I don't think I've ever seen a film that has surpassed the hype so effortlessly.

Took me a little while to get into things, but about a third of the way in I was hooked, and it just got better and better from that point onwards.

Dark Knight is a real testament to how important and powerful a good script is to any film. Sure, all the performances were superb, as was the filmmaking in general, but it was the dense, clever, trickster script that made the film a success for me. Everytime I thought I'd worked it out, they'd pull something else out of the bag.

Nolan's had a history of films that play like magic tricks (Memento, The Prestige etc) and while Dark Knight is structurally much less tangled, the plot neverthless plays out like a series of con jobs, which is perfect for a Joker-led plot.

Also loved the apparent influence that the Gotham Central comics seem to have had on the film.

The dense script packed in a huge number of themes and ideas (not sure what Ben is on about that it didn't have anything to say about society etc...), most of which were explored in an interesting manner. It's a film that you need to think about, and which will probably reward multiple viewings. Much as I love Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, once you've seen them once you've seen all they've got to give, really.

Finally, I loved the way it jettisoned the standard comic book movie formula and shook things up a bit, in terms of tone, themes and structure.

If I had to pick one thing I didn't like about the film, it would be the silly sonar vision technology. I like the idea of a 3D imaging system like that, but using mobile phones as justification for it was a bit daft. Still, it was a minor problem amongst the rest of the greatness.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jul 2008, 7:32pm

Post 100 of 176

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

Just saw this today. Was as good as I thought it would be, but as others have mentioned the plot was rather dense, as dense as Spiderman 3 was criticised for. It did manage to tie it all together though and everything flowed well. I'm not keen on statements like "best superhero movie ever", but it's one of them. I thought it did well to include lots of archetypal elements, and the court scenes (like the first film) illustrated exactly why superheroes are needed - when normal justice fails.

All the performances were great, and there were some nice surprises, like seeing Nestor Carbonnel from Lost and Holtz from Angel. Most of the performances were good, and it's becoming cliche but Ledger's performance was truly superb. Jack Nicholson played himself... Ledger immersed himself in the role and Backofthehearse sums up my thoughts, all the nuances are amazing, the performance is so primal. It is Oscar worthy, but we should see what other performances come in the months ahead.

A couple of things I didn't like:

-The plane shot in Hong Kong.
-Part of Two Face's effects, just around his eye. The rest of his face was amazingly realistic, and had the females sitting next to me cringing and looking away, but the eyeball wasn't 100% and the top half of that side of his face looked a bit like the effect from The Mummy (i.e. fake looking late 90s CGI). They should have added more skin around his eye imo.
-There was some continuity errors that I found distracting in a dialogue scene between Bruce and Alfred, their head stances and expressions kept changing between cuts.
-I thought Maggie was good but Rachel wasn't. It felt like Rachel drove the plot forward more in Batman Begins. In this, she doesn't... until she's dead. I don't mind her dying, and agree it resulted in important character development, but before that she didn't do much. She helped constitute the good in Harvey and Batman, so I think she deserved more.

I thought it did have deeper meanings, it showed human frailties, e.g. Rachel kissing Bruce one moment, Harvey the next... thinking with emotion more than with mind... letting external forces cloud judgement and make you do things you wouldn't (Harvey's metamorphosis, the public's fears)... the Joker himself represents something we don't understand and have been unsettled by for years, e.g. incomprehensible acts of violence like school shootings. The Joker does have a high body count, but as his name suggests he's also a trickster and makes people do things to each other, preying on their insecurities, wish to survive etc. It's only when one of his schemes to make people do things to each other fails that he fails.

Edit: agree with Tarn about glowy eyes sonar thing. It's trying to introduce an animal, spider sense but Bat sense type thing... but technology. It seems too high tech at the moment, when the other stuff seems founded on fairly real, similar to existing tech.
Posted: Fri, 25th Jul 2008, 7:56pm

Post 101 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Is it pathetic that I associate Nestor Carbonell not with Lost, but with Suddely Susan? biggrin
Posted: Sat, 26th Jul 2008, 10:34am

Post 102 of 176

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I just got back from seeing it tonight. I won't repeat the praises most of you gave other than to say that the Joker positively ruled.

On the negatives there were a few things like Bryce said about the bike bouncing of the wall.

In addition, the scene where the Joker was shooting the RPG and the SWAT truck keeping pace to give it a clear shot was ridiculous and a SWAT guy saying "What is that? A BAZOOKA??"

I have to say that I didn't care for Bale's voice while the Batman. His low-level growling got annoying by the end. And I have to say the cowl didn't look that good.

To add to Tarn's comment about the cellphone set-up that Bruce Wayne did to find the Joker was not only a stretch but to make a rig that covers the city in such a short time was an even larger stretch.

Other than that this is the best movie with great acting.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:54am

Post 103 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Garrison wrote:

To add to Tarn's comment about the cellphone set-up that Bruce Wayne did to find the Joker was not only a stretch but to make a rig that covers the city in such a short time was an even larger stretch.
What made it go too far for me was when Bats was getting a live 3D feed of the construction site during the fighting, seeing where everyone was and how they were moving. Even though...surely there weren't people using mobile phone anywhere nearby? It didn't make sense.

Still, it was a film about ideas, and for so many of the ideas to work brilliantly is testament to the filmmaking skill at work. Even the silly sonar idea was used to raise an extremely important ethical point, with regards to privacy and surveillance. Good to see Fox representing the side of Wayne's personality that still adheres to rules - you sense that without Fox and Alfred, Batman could quite easily have descended to the Joker's level.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 10:13am

Post 104 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Garrison wrote:


I have to say that I didn't care for Bale's voice while the Batman. His low-level growling got annoying by the end.
It was damn near campy when he started lecturing the Joker about people believing in hope (Or however that went). I actually was having a hard time understanding what he was saying because he was starting to slur a bit...
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 4:30pm

Post 105 of 176

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Tarn wrote:


What made it go too far for me was when Bats was getting a live 3D feed of the construction site during the fighting, seeing where everyone was and how they were moving. Even though...surely there weren't people using mobile phone anywhere nearby? It didn't make sense.
There were the hostages...and joker's minions...and the swat team. smile

Actually, I never really cared so much of how it was possible for the whole rig to work. It did come off strange to me to all of a sudden see blue glowy eyes on Batman, but I felt the entire setup was necessary. They needed a way to get Fox out of the picture, and a rig that encroached on the privacy of the public did just that and more: it even set a precedent for the ultra cool monitoring equipment Bruce uses in the bat cave later on.

Though, it would have been nice to have had a low tech solution to catching the Joker.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 4:42pm

Post 106 of 176

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Except it didn't get Fox out of the picture at all, when Fox put his name in the machine destroyed itself, the voice over says something along the lines of rewarding loyalty.

Though I suppose Fox still may have quit, I had assumed he wouldn't given the machine destroying itself.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 5:35pm

Post 107 of 176

No Respite Productions

Force: 985 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 482

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

That's how I read it, the machine self terminated leaving Fox still in the picture (note the small smile he makes once he punches his name in).

I thought the gadgets were starting to get a little OTT in this film, the Tumbler/Batpod was good but the use of the cellphone network and the bullet fragment finger printing sequence was totally ridiculous. The writers could have written in a low tech solution just as easily.

But that beef aside I thought it was astounding and already one of my favourite films of all time.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 7:52pm

Post 108 of 176

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Except it didn't get Fox out of the picture at all, when Fox put his name in the machine destroyed itself, the voice over says something along the lines of rewarding loyalty.
I interpreted it as putting his name in was the signature of his termination, the machine merely destroying itself as a response.

When I meant out of the picture, I meant not constantly referred to or shown on camera. He could still be helping Batman (never read the comics so don't know his story really), but as I recall in the cartoons and other movies, they never refer to him.

Then again, I've only watched this movie once. Hoping to see it again soon.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:24pm

Post 109 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

mVPstar wrote:

I interpreted it as putting his name in was the signature of his termination, the machine merely destroying itself as a response.
How in the world did you interpret it this way? biggrin

His surprise at the machine's self-destruction- and subsequent smile- was an obvious tell that his trust in Bruce's good intentions paid off and that, after all, would not leave the company.

Hence the phrase by Fox "as long as this machine is in operation, I am no longer an employee" or something. If the machine is out of the picture, Fox is back into it. The fact that Bruce told him to enter his name means Bruce was telling him to destroy the machine. Ergo, Bruce was doing the right thing, and Fox recognized this.
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:11am

Post 110 of 176

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I saw this the night that it came out. I don't know why I haven't posted anything about it until now.

Just like everyone else, I thought it was completely awesome. Definitely the best movie I've seen this year.
I know it's been said a thousand times before, but I'm about to repeat it (it deserves to be repeated): Heath Ledger's Joker was AMAZING! He delivered one of the best performances I've ever seen. Before I saw The Dark Knight, I thought that his performance would be on-par with Jack Nicholson's and that they wouldn't be very comparable because the actors both went in very different directions with the character. However, after seeing the movie, regardless of how different the directions they took may have been, I cannot deny that Heath Ledger wiped the floor with Jack Nicholson's already fantastic Joker performance.




***SPOILERS!!!***


My only real gripe about the movie (which isn't even that big of a gripe), is that they didn't quite conclude the Joker as well as they could have. When the SWAT guys came in, they don't actually show anything.

***END OF SPOILERS***




I'm going to go see this movie again tomorrow and can't wait. It seems you can never quite tell just how much you like a movie until you've seen it at least twice, and even though I just saw this movie, I'm very much looking forward to the second viewing.

Last edited Fri, 16th Jan 2009, 2:28am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:21am

Post 111 of 176

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Ergo, vis a vis, big machine with loads of monitors... it's The Matrix!
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:22am

Post 112 of 176

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Well see, that's the thing, the Joker didn't die. Batman saved him. Also, Ledger was still alive back then and they didn't think he'd die.

This is actually one of the things that worries me about the 3rd movie: how will they treat the Joker? Recasting would be stupid, and trying to pull it off with CG wouldn't work because the subtilities and voice are one-of-a-kind, so it seems like we'll only hear other characters talk about him rotting in prison, which is kind of lame.
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:29am

Post 113 of 176

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

ben3308 wrote:

Hence the phrase by Fox "as long as this machine is in operation, I am no longer an employee" or something.
Must have missed that line, then. The people behind me were like "Oh SNAP" during that scene, and most every scene actually.
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:41am

Post 114 of 176

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

The Joker thing is a difficult one. I'd rather them leave out the character from a future movie, but have the effects from his trickery still last into the film (e.g. huge distrust from the citizens of Gotham. I like the idea of Batman being the criminal for a third of the movie). I just don't think another actor could give the role the continuity we need. It was odd enough seeing a different Rachel.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 2:58am

Post 115 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

By the way, I just got the soundtrack to this movie, and it's absolutely amazing.

The song that plays of the opening bank robbery, and the song that plays right before the credits is... enviably great.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 3:01am

Post 116 of 176

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Garrison wrote:

n addition, the scene where the Joker was shooting the RPG and the SWAT truck keeping pace to give it a clear shot was ridiculous and a SWAT guy saying "What is that? A BAZOOKA??"
There was actually another semi driven by the Joker's henchmen pushing the SWAT truck to make it keep pace with the one the Joker was in.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 4:40am

Post 117 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Alright, my friend's dad said he knows someone working on the sequel (already) and that one of the villains will be the Riddler, played by Ashton Kutcher (which could be interesting). I know Riddler is already rumored and David Tennant is already interested in the role according to some film news sites. But I'm posting it now because if it's wrong, no one will remember. If I'm right, this will be published evidence of how awesome I am.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 4:49am

Post 118 of 176

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ashton Kutcher could play an incredible Riddler. I dunno what all your thoughts of The Butterfly Effect are, but he has almost mastered blending comedy and seriousness into tragedy.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 4:53am

Post 119 of 176

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I would only want to see the Riddler if they played him as more of a Zodiac type killer, not the flamboyant Jim Carrey interpretation.

I just can't help think that the Riddler is more a clone of the Joker than anything else and a third movie can't possibly beat TDK because of it's use of the comic's two "best" (most adaptable in Nolan's universe) villains...

Oh well.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 5:07am

Post 120 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

If David Tennant got the role it could also be pretty cool. The Riddler could make for a cool villain in Nolan's universe.

However there are so many Batman villains that would fit in this less comic-booky take on Batman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_villains

I hope they avoid some of the popular villains to avoid sacrificing quality. I'm not much of a comic book guy, but when the question was brought up of "who else?" I went and looked and there is actually plenty of good material that hasn't been featured in previous Batman films. Just read some of the Wiki articles on villains that sound fitting. Some are very badass and worthy.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 5:14am

Post 121 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

By the way, I just got the soundtrack to this movie, and it's absolutely amazing.

The song that plays of the opening bank robbery, and the song that plays right before the credits is... enviably great.
Bah this has been bugging me.

Basically, I completely, completely disagree. I bought the soundtrack on a loooooooooong drive home from Colorado last weekend (two days of straight driving, 12 hours each day) and listened to it over and over, then compared it to Begins' soundtrack on my iPod.

In my opinion, the mesh of harsh guitar and strings into the original Batman Begins score works maybe once (the beginning scene) to introduce the Joker, a chaotic stitching of brilliance, but as standalone music to be listened to it's nothing very astounding. And as a whole soundtrack, it's all rather messy and underwhelming.

In fact, it suffers from exactly what the director's note in the album case says they didn't want: A sound that isn't as good as Batman Begins but still feels too similar to be comfortable with the tones.

I would've either kept the entire original Begins' soundtrack (A perfect soundtrack, might I add. A brilliant, awe-inspiring, bring-you-to-tears-it's-so-memorable blend of Zimmer's ominous percussions and Howard's triumphant horns and strings.) or simply pulled a John Williams and throw in a few supplemental tracks into the existing ones.

Instead, the Dark Knight soundtrack does what, in theory, sounds like a good idea analogous to the ideas of the film: It takes the existing soundtrack and, to quote the Joker, "turns it on its head." The problem with this, is you end up with a single sound of chaos. And as far as tone goes, that doesn't always work. You lose the heartfelt nostalgia of Bruce's parents' death, the triumphant reveal of the Batmobile, the first scared-sh!tless flyby in Batman's rigid hang-gliding cape; all these sounds that worked so effortlessly well in the first movie just don't in the new one.

And, I think, if there's one facet of The Dark Knight that isn't even a partial stroke of genius, it's the soundtrack.

The only track I will say is a late and too minor step in the right direction (but nonetheless brilliant) is, as you said Bryce, the last one titled "A Dark Knight". But enough ranting, I've got both Begins' and TDK's songs stuck in my head now. smile
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 8:13am

Post 122 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

The Nolan Batman's scores work really well for me, specifically because they're not really designed to be listened to on their own. They both work subliminally and effectively in the films and have been tailored specifically for that - they're not particularly concerned with being hummable.

Dark Knight has this in particular - I can't remember a single piece of music, all I know is that it worked extremely well to keep the tension up.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 5:55pm

Post 123 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

At 40 seconds in this video, The lights on the Bat-Pod are spinning, which would mean that the wheels should be spinning, right? which would also mean that Batman would be flipping upside down. let's say the wheels didn't spin, just the lights, then how would the lights go under the tires?
Surprisingly that's the only thing that bugged me in the whole movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0LHRoQJbow
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 6:04pm

Post 124 of 176

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

At 40 seconds in this video, The lights on the Bat-Pod are spinning, which would mean that the wheels should be spinning, right? which would also mean that Batman would be flipping upside down. let's say the wheels didn't spin, just the lights, then how would the lights go under the tires?
Surprisingly that's the only thing that bugged me in the whole movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0LHRoQJbow
The wheels ARE spinning (on a different axis than is usual for wheels). This is a motorcycle that just came out of a freakin' CAR. Who's to say it wasn't designed with that type of mobility and turning abilities? A sharp turn that would normally skid out and flip over is compensated by unlocking the wheels to move in the flow that the bike's body is moving, thus preventing a crash.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 6:31pm

Post 125 of 176

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

the entire original Begins' soundtrack (A perfect soundtrack, might I add.
I couldn't disagree more. smile

The Batman Begins score can't hold a candle to Elfmans original Batman score. It's nice and all, but musically, it's far less interesting or thought through then Elfmans version. And far less cool too. So in every aspect a way inferior score.

But it does work nice with the movie indeed.

Batman Begins score work is a pretty solid 3/5 for me, Elfmans version is an outstanding 5/5 triumphing on my "best scores ever made" list.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 7:35pm

Post 126 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

But I'm not comparing Elfman's to Zimmer/Howard's soundtrack; I'm comparing one movie soundtrack to the same-ish, lame-ish other of the same composers.

In its own right, Elfman's is genius. But I wouldn't call it overwhelmingly better than the new sounds. Just......different, achieving a different feel.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 7:47pm

Post 127 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So Atom, are you saying that Begins' soundtrack is better then TDK's? I read your post over and over again and I really can't say that got your point.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 8:07pm

Post 128 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

In my opinion, yes, Batman Begins OST is better than The Dark Knight OST. TDK is more of a noisy retooling of Begins' brilliance. And like I said: In theory this works with the themes of the movie. In reality, where harmony and tone take precedence in how a movie 'feels', it's just a big mess that doesn't do anything for me.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 9:54pm

Post 129 of 176

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

In my opinion, yes, Batman Begins OST is better than The Dark Knight OST. TDK is more of a noisy retooling of Begins' brilliance. And like I said: In theory this works with the themes of the movie. In reality, where harmony and tone take precedence in how a movie 'feels', it's just a big mess that doesn't do anything for me.
Alright thanks for speaking simple english smile But from what I heard in the movie, both sound like pretty much the same. I'll pay more attention next time I see it
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 11:36pm

Post 130 of 176

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Elfmans "Batman" main theme is one of my all time favorites. Extremely iconic, and I really wish they would have included hints of it in the new ones...
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 4:59am

Post 131 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

After reading all of this I just had to say that this movie doesn't hold a candle to Batman Begins. I must have seen a different movie. I could have chopped 20 or 30 minutes from it easily to pick up the pace which went in fits and starts the entire way through. When I start wondering what time it is that tells me the movie isn't all that good at holding my interest.

The Joker had his moments, but an earth shattering performance it was far from. My friend described it as Heath doing Jack doing The Joker and while I don't entirely agree with the comparison I can still see it more than not in a lot of it.

With Batman Begins I've seen it many times, but I won't be going out of my way to watch this one again.

In the end, more of this is hype than greatness IMO. Ironman was superior.

But, I'm in the minority and don't really care that I am so feel free to carry on preaching to the choir and skip this interruption.

Bart
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 8:20am

Post 132 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

bartman wrote:

But, I'm in the minority and don't really care that I am so feel free to carry on preaching to the choir and skip this interruption.
Heh, you seem rather bitter than other people liked the film?

Sollthar wrote:

The Batman Begins score can't hold a candle to Elfmans original Batman score. It's nice and all, but musically, it's far less interesting or thought through then Elfmans version. And far less cool too. So in every aspect a way inferior score.

But it does work nice with the movie indeed.
Surely the point of a soundtrack is to work well within the movie it is designed for? Whether it makes for good listening outside of the film is completely irrelevant with regards to judging its quality or success.

I love both Elfman's scores and the BB/TDK scores. They're both hugely different and would be wildly inappropriate if swapped around. I don't get why Bryce would like to see Elfman's themes in BB/TDK...the Elfman bombastic bom-bi-di-bom-bi-di style would be completey out of place.

If you're arguing that Elfman's is better to listen to outside of the film, then, yeah, of course you're right. But that seems a strange category to judge whether a score is superior or inferior, as it's missing the main point of a score's existence.

Last edited Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 8:48am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 8:31am

Post 133 of 176

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:


Surely the point of soundtrack is to work well within the movie it is designed for? Whether it makes for good listening outside of the film is completely irrelevant with regards to judging its quality or success.
That's what I've been thinkin this whole time...
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 8:57am

Post 134 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, I think what they are trying to say is TDK/BB scores do their job and are fine. But Elfman's score did that and more for Burton's film.

So for me, the Nolan Batman scores were fine, great, they did their job. But because they aren't memorable I certainly wouldn't consider them fantastic. Elfman's score on the other hand is just pure genius though and works in and out of the film. It's like comparing a perfectly fine performance from an actor, to an actor who just goes above and beyond.

So I think memorable = able to listen to outside the film = justifiable reason for comparing the two scores and ranking Elfman's higher. And I also agree with Bryce that hints of the score could have been fitting and cool (though it doesn't bother me at all that it wasn't incorporated; as I said, I'm perfectly content with the BB and TDK scores).
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 9:06am

Post 135 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Serpent wrote:

Well, I think what they are trying to say is TDK/BB scores do their job and are fine. But Elfman's score did that and more for Burton's film.

So for me, the Nolan Batman scores were fine, great, they did their job. But because they aren't memorable I certainly wouldn't consider them fantastic. Elfman's score on the other hand is just pure genius though and works in and out of the film. It's like comparing a perfectly fine performance from an actor, to an actor who just goes above and beyond.
Hmm, I actually disagree with that. A strongly theme-based score in BB/TDK really wouldn't have fit the tone. Scores with strong, memorable themes I tend to associate with fun adventures - Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Superman, Back to the Future, the original Batmans etc.

What I definitely don't associate with that kind of music is the drama/crime genre. Michael Mann's crime stuff, for example, I wouldn't expect to find a great hummable tune as Al Pacino takes down Robert De Niro, or as Jamie Fox outsmarts Tom Cruise. Last of the Mohicans, however, did have a memorable score, because it suits the picture.

I'm not saying one approach is better or worse than the other, just that each is appropriate to their context. If TDK had cool hummable tunes I think it would detract from the film itself, which to me would result in it being an inferior score.

It's not the job of a score to be great inside AND outside of the film. If it's a good listen outside of the film then that's a pleasant bonus, but I wouldn't say it has anything to do with the score's actual quality. First and foremost, it's a film score. Judging how it works as a piece of standalone classical music should be a completely separate discussion, unconnected to its worth as a film score.

The same can go for actors, to use your other example. An actor that goes above and beyond the call of duty can actually imbalance a film, overshadowing everything else. It's all about everything working in sync and in context, rather than single factors standing out above the rest.

That's what I reckon, anyway. razz
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 9:22am

Post 136 of 176

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

DK isn't really the same kind of film as any of the previous ones, a themed score would be inappropriately jocular and somewhat childish, in my opinion.

89 Batman set the tone for the next 3. That tone was, basically, "Pantomime". The art, the direction, the costumes, the script, was all about condensing the tone of the comic into a film, rather than making a film about a comic. In the same way that comics have to condense complex scenes into individual panels, so Burton and Elfman condensed and concentrated the tone of the film into easily understandible cliches. (Awesome, iconic cliches, but cliches none the less). Nicholson, Jones, Carey, Schwarzenegger are known for being repeatedly cast as cliches of humans, it was perfect casting for a perfectly oversaturated (in a v.broad sense) film. The music was similarly brilliant - a huge Brass section pumping out memorable themes by the truckload.

DK is simply not one of those kinds of film. DK is basically a Tom Clancey film, mixed with a Bond film, Mixed with Spiderman. When the tone of the franchise suddenly turns towards realism, grit, plausibility, real people not just characters, then themes lose their worth.

Musical themes are the glue that bind knowingly cliched films, not emotional action dramas.
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 9:40am

Post 137 of 176

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't think the way TDK or BB's score should have been done in a "theme-like" way. But traces of it, in my opinion, could have been incorporated into maybe even just the intro music or end credits, or something, without taking away from the film at all. I'm not saying it even should have (I think I mentioned that), I'm just saying it could have. The fact that it wasn't doesn't bother me at all (think I said that too). I don't think Elfman's approach would have worked for these films. However I personally rank Elfman's score higher. However BB/TDK I rank higher than Burton's Batman films easily. That doesn't mean I'd like to combine my two favorites at all. I don't want to be misunderstood here in what I'm trying to express at 5:00AM at night. wink

Also, Xcession, I disagree on your mixes of films for TDK except Bond, I'd include that. I'd have to think if I were to come up with my own mix, but I'm tired right now. Mind explaining the others? I just didn't see Tom Clancy novel or Spiderman vibe in this at all. I think mine would involve The Departed, possibly, and Bond now that you mention it (mostly for the gadget testing scenes, and use of said gadgets later on).

But I totally agree with both of you that a themish score wouldn't necessarily fit. I'm just saying in my overall opinion of film scores, I tend to rank memorable ones higher (usually themed) and a very tired me tried to justify it. Maybe I'll try to reword it when I'm conscious (but probably not).
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 9:58am

Post 138 of 176

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Bond - clearly the gadgets.

Spiderman - was the first comic-film-conversion which I recall properly covering the dilemmas of superheroism. It was of course covered briefly in all the Batmans (and a number of other comic films), but in those it was presented in a pulped way that seemed more a paraphrasing of the comics. DK and Spiderman appear to have a deliberate, unique political perspective, not found in the comics alone.

Tom Clancey - its just the whole military aspect really. Plus characters who are genuinely elite but without the need to explain why or how etc. Its the matter-of-fact hardcoreness, mixed with Clancey's all-pervasive tone of Fighting The Good Fight, I think. I'm of course refering to the early Clancey films, not those lame ones without Ford or Connery.
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 10:06am

Post 139 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Xcession wrote:

DK and Spiderman appear to have a deliberate, unique political perspective, not found in the comics alone.
Eh? Pretty much all the themes and styles in the Spidey movies and TDK have come straight from the comics. In the case of Spidey, they've usually been done better in the comics, too.

Dark Knight is pretty much the first comic book movie to actually match the quality of the source material, and in places better it.
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 10:10am

Post 140 of 176

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

By finishing the sentence with "not found in the comics alone" i meant that yes, clearly themes came from the comics, but that there were also perspectives unique to the director that weren't found in the comics razz
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 10:11am

Post 141 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

In that case I'll let you off.

Just this once.
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 1:45pm

Post 142 of 176

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

A strongly theme-based score in BB/TDK really wouldn't have fit the tone.
Am I the only one who gets the theme played throughout TDK stuck in my head after I see the movie? smile To me it seems that BB/TDK are somewhat theme-based scores, and they're very good themes that, to me, seem pretty catchy (if that's the right word), not "hummable," and certainly not anything like the ones in movies like the 89 Batman, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Back to the Future, but to me, it still does seem very theme-based, and the themes do seem catchy... or at least the main theme does, and they fit the movie very well.


Tarn wrote:

What I definitely don't associate with that kind of music is the drama/crime genre.
Well, I think any kind of movie should be able to have a memorable theme (or themes) regardless of the genre. However, by memorable it doesn't mean it has to be a "hummable" jingle. The Bourne movies (crime) and Edward Scissorhands (drama) for example each have memorable themes, but neither have short, energetic, hummable themes like Star Wars or Back to the Future, but that doesn't mean that they're not strong, memorable themes. Also, these movies are nothing alike, and neither are their themes. They each have themes that fit the movies very well that are also memorable.
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 1:45pm

Post 143 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Only "bitter" that I spent money to see it. Each to his own. I just got to work and a co-worker asked what I thought about it. He said it had no flow and his kid even hated it and that boy lives on these kinds of movies. So, I guess I'm not totally alone. Out of 10 it is a 5. One thumb down as it were.

Bart
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 7:39pm

Post 144 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What Jabooza said...
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 8:32pm

Post 145 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

bartman wrote:

Only "bitter" that I spent money to see it. Each to his own. I just got to work and a co-worker asked what I thought about it. He said it had no flow and his kid even hated it and that boy lives on these kinds of movies. So, I guess I'm not totally alone. Out of 10 it is a 5. One thumb down as it were.

Bart
You must have seen a different movie than we did then...
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 9:20pm

Post 146 of 176

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

bartman wrote:

Only "bitter" that I spent money to see it. Each to his own. I just got to work and a co-worker asked what I thought about it. He said it had no flow and his kid even hated it and that boy lives on these kinds of movies. So, I guess I'm not totally alone. Out of 10 it is a 5. One thumb down as it were.

Bart
Any particular reasons why you didn't like it?
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 11:39pm

Post 147 of 176

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

Surely the point of a soundtrack is to work well within the movie it is designed for?
Obviously we have very different views on what a filmscore does and should do. Naturally, it should work within the film.
Never the less it's a piece of music and therefore can and should be judged on it's musical value as well - also but not only limited to it's "listenability". But there are scores difficult to listen to, without memorable themes, which are STILL of a very high musical value (some work of Elliot Goldenthal comes to mind spontaneously).

So for me, a GOOD score recreates a films themes within musical language. An excellent example for this is the work of John Williams in Episode 2, who managed to express the slow transformation from Anakin into Darth Vader on such a high level (using a blend of themes, chords and instrumental choices that evolve and expand throughout the score)while the rest of the film, as everyone knows, was terrible for me. smile

A GOOD score works well within the film and supports it through.

A GOOD score can be taken without the images and without the film and tells a story of it's own. And ideally, it's also enjoyable to listen to.

I don't consider Batman Begins a bad score, it's very okay. And by the way, your argument it doesn't have a hummable theme or motive is wrong, because it has both. It's less obvious then Elfmans, granted. But it's there and does it's job musically. So all of those who say BB works without themes should probably listen to it a bit more closely or read some of the interviews with Zimmer/Newton-Howard about the music.

So I DO found musical values absolutely relevant to judging it's quality and success as a score. To blend those aspects out entirely as if they had no impact on it's quality doesn't work for me and I'd say, THAT is missing the point: Forgetting that you're dealing with an artform of it's own.

A score which works well within and without the film will always be a "better score" then the one who works within the film but not without it.

They're both hugely different and would be wildly inappropriate if swapped around.
Definately, yeah.
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 12:31am

Post 148 of 176

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rebourne wrote:

bartman wrote:

Only "bitter" that I spent money to see it. Each to his own. I just got to work and a co-worker asked what I thought about it. He said it had no flow and his kid even hated it and that boy lives on these kinds of movies. So, I guess I'm not totally alone. Out of 10 it is a 5. One thumb down as it were.

Bart
You must have seen a different movie than we did then...
Maybe he saw the version that George Lucas got his hands on.
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 1:12am

Post 149 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hendo wrote:

Rebourne wrote:

bartman wrote:

Only "bitter" that I spent money to see it. Each to his own. I just got to work and a co-worker asked what I thought about it. He said it had no flow and his kid even hated it and that boy lives on these kinds of movies. So, I guess I'm not totally alone. Out of 10 it is a 5. One thumb down as it were.

Bart
You must have seen a different movie than we did then...
Maybe he saw the version that George Lucas got his hands on.
The one where Batman turns out to be an... Alien! And a big UFO comes down and make everyone realize that Batman needed to return to the space between spaces... That one?
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 2:44am

Post 150 of 176

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

BackOfTheHearse wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:

At 40 seconds in this video, The lights on the Bat-Pod are spinning, which would mean that the wheels should be spinning, right? which would also mean that Batman would be flipping upside down. let's say the wheels didn't spin, just the lights, then how would the lights go under the tires?
Surprisingly that's the only thing that bugged me in the whole movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0LHRoQJbow
The wheels ARE spinning (on a different axis than is usual for wheels). This is a motorcycle that just came out of a freakin' CAR. Who's to say it wasn't designed with that type of mobility and turning abilities? A sharp turn that would normally skid out and flip over is compensated by unlocking the wheels to move in the flow that the bike's body is moving, thus preventing a crash.
Furthermore, I forgot to mention that this was the same feature that made the BatPod capable of the wall flip.

So I don't see what the problem is, unless I am missing something?
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 2:51am

Post 151 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

[quote="Penguin
Any particular reasons why you didn't like it?[/quote]

The big ones:

The pace was not there. Up and down, fits and starts and as my co-worker said, "no flow". I kept thinking, "Okay, it is going to pick up now... okay, now... okay, now...then it was over". It would just get into a stream then drop off again. Anti-climatic.

The final joker "fight" didn't have enough impact to even grab my attention. It was no more than any of the other fight scenes and for what should have been a climatic final with him it was not.

The whole Cell phone sonar thing was just too over the top. The first movie walked the line on what could pass for real, this was just, "give me a break."

The Hong Kong scene was a brick in the middle of an already poorly paced film.

Listen to the music. Hear that bug buzzing louder and louder? I guess something is going to happen soon. And again, and again. We need that to build up the drama?

The Batman voice "growl" seemed excessive and laughable.

I didn't find the Joker character very creepy or funny at all. He had about three moments of funny and the rest was just twitchy. Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs kept me awake after watching it, the Joker did not. If that performance gets an Oscar Hollywood really is on crack.

Was it supposed to be a shock that Gordon wasn't dead? Only if you live under a rock I guess.

Did I mention the pacing? Yeah, that would be the biggest problem. Had it been tightened up I might have got into it more. It reminded me of the second Matrix movie, no where as brillant as the first and more than a little disappointing. When I check the time multiple times during a movie it is not a good sign.

Watching the audience I noticed quite a few people making trips to and from the lobby so no one was glued to the edge of his seat and afterwards everyone just filed out in silence. Might just as well have been a funeral. No "buzz" at all.

So, when I read here how people are wetting themselves about this thing I do wonder if we got a different movie. I avoided reading anything about the hype until I could see it for myself since hype sets up expectations and even with very little expectation for me it still didn't make the cut. I thought it would have a good chance, but nope.

Bart
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 3:07am

Post 152 of 176

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Seems to me like you think the opposite of... pretty much everyone...

"If that performance gets an Oscar Hollywood really is on crack."

If any other perfomance (so far) gets an oscar then hollywoods on crack... Ledgers pretty much got most people beat in my oppinion and a lot of others opinions...

I'm not saying my opinions right, I'm just saying yours is wrong





... smile ... I guess I have to put this in here to let people know I'm joking right.
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 3:07am

Post 153 of 176

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Bart, don't voice that opinion too publicly. The Dark Knight fanboys are probably on their way right now. smile David Edelstein of New York Magazine has gotten some reallly nasty e-mails for his very negative review of the movie.
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 4:11am

Post 154 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Oh, good, I'll check my email right away! Thanks for the heads up. I'll need to read that review as well.

Bart

Just read it and this line pretty much sums it up perfectly, "Actually, Freeman looks like he knows what’s going on. Maybe the sequence plays well in sonar"

I was quite surprised how this guy pretty much got the same movie as we did. Bang on accurate review. I need to share that one.

Bart
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 4:46am

Post 155 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

bartman, as a DK fanboy, I have nothing to say to you...
snooty



wink
But really, I couldn't disagree with you more about the Dark Knight.
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 8:17am

Post 156 of 176

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

bartman wrote:

Watching the audience I noticed quite a few people making trips to and from the lobby so no one was glued to the edge of his seat and afterwards everyone just filed out in silence. Might just as well have been a funeral. No "buzz" at all.
That's interesting. At the opening night screening I went to, which was completely packed and clearly full of people that were only there because Heath Ledger died, the audience was seemingly enraptured by the whole thing. Despite lots of jibbering teenagers during the trailers at the start, once the film started everyone seemed to be right on the edge of their seats, there was barely any movement at all. And everyone cringed, laughed and shrieked at the appropriate moments. For a non-geek crowd, I was surprised how into the film everyone was.

I wonder how much effect the rest of the audience has on a viewer?
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 9:07am

Post 157 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Although I don't think such is entirely warranted by a great but not perfect movie, my second viewing had a sold-out audience yesterday, nearly two weeks after opening, glued to their seats.

Oh, and this was at a regular theater screen in an IMAX place. I drove pretty far out with a friend, too, as we knew the couple of Dallas IMAXs (rare enough that we've got more than one) were sold out still. And we tried our luck at catching an IMAX screening about 20 miles out-of-town.

We got to this IMAX only to find it was sold out until next Tuesday. Next Tuesday. That's nearly three straight weeks of pre-ordered sold-outness. People obviously love this movie, and are definitely glued to their seats for it.

I don't think it's a masterpiece-worthy-moniker picture as many people swear it to be, but those ticket sales (and repeat, second-viewing ticket sales) say something about the audience's reaction smile
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 4:37pm

Post 158 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind. If you liked it, you liked it, if you didn't you didn't. Each to his own.

The one reviewer did mention that just like Star Wars episode 1 it took the fanboys a while, but they finally had to admit it was crap. While I don't think this movie was total crap I think that over time it won't be regarded as highly as people are making it out to be now.

I do think group mentality plays a role in any movie success or failure.

Bart
Posted: Sat, 2nd Aug 2008, 3:35am

Post 159 of 176

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Group mentality plays a big role in EVERYTHING. It's part of the fun, IMO.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Aug 2008, 1:43am

Post 160 of 176

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

The TDK fanboys over at IMDb are rating down The Godfather.

wall
Posted: Sun, 3rd Aug 2008, 4:03am

Post 161 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While it's stupid that people are rating down the Godfather, how do you know it's TKD fanboys?
Posted: Sun, 3rd Aug 2008, 9:01am

Post 162 of 176

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I saw the film about a week ago, and I must say I absolutely loved it. It was probably one of the best action films I've seen, and I'd put it in my top 5 of films I've seen. Very impressive, probably the best experience I had going to a theatre in 5 or 6 years. smile
Posted: Sun, 3rd Aug 2008, 2:48pm

Post 163 of 176

vilhelm nielsen

Force: 798 | Joined: 28th Jul 2003 | Posts: 345

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Saw it yesterday, and I was pretty excited to see it. And it surprised me how good it was. Best Superhero movie ever released.

Great casting, and terriffic acting. But I wish we had Imax here in Denmark. I saw Batman Begins in Imax and that blew my mind.
Posted: Wed, 6th Aug 2008, 5:19am

Post 164 of 176

DanielMaher

Force: 247 | Joined: 22nd Jul 2008 | Posts: 27

Member

I just saw The Dark Knight for the second time (this time I saw it in IMAX) and I was just blown away! I guess it's true that you'll never really appreciate IMAX until you watch your favorite movie in it.
Posted: Wed, 6th Aug 2008, 6:35am

Post 165 of 176

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Haha, fans are already speculating on who might be the villain for the next addition to the Batman movies. I think my favorite choice would be Johnny Depp as the Riddler, simply because he seems absolutely perfect for the part, but they'll probably go with Catwoman..
Posted: Wed, 6th Aug 2008, 5:41pm

Post 166 of 176

DanielMaher

Force: 247 | Joined: 22nd Jul 2008 | Posts: 27

Member

Thrawn wrote:

Haha, fans are already speculating on who might be the villain for the next addition to the Batman movies. I think my favorite choice would be Johnny Depp as the Riddler, simply because he seems absolutely perfect for the part, but they'll probably go with Catwoman..
Exactly! my brother won't shut up about how two face isn't dead and he's going to be the next villan!
Posted: Wed, 6th Aug 2008, 10:29pm

Post 167 of 176

IPresents

Force: 295 | Joined: 26th Mar 2008 | Posts: 127

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Woah. Just saw this movie. Its amazing I recommend it. The Joker was played brillantly! The Batman was played alright.

I rate this movie a...5/5 !
Posted: Thu, 21st Aug 2008, 2:58pm

Post 168 of 176

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Finally it came out here in switzerland too and I watched it. It was great - but to me, as expected, not as OMGAWESOME as it was hyped to be.

First off, Ledgers Joker was absolutely brilliantly acted and one of the coolest, scariest and on-pointest psycho villains I've yet seen portrayed in a film of it's kind. Ledger AND the writing did a fantastic job there. As much as I wanted to compare Nicholson and Ledger earlier, I came to the conclusion that a comparison is entirely impossible and makes no sense. The two characters were so utterly different and in such an utterly different universe, that it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both were brilliant.

The film itself unfolded very nicely and I loved the dark tone throughout. On a technical note, I thought the film was very well crafted and put together to make for some fantastically memorable moments and scenes. I also liked how the action scenes improved a lot over batman begins, as did many other things.

However, now to why the film isn't as awesome in my eyes as everyone else seems to think. To me, the film had too many elements that I disliked or too far fetched to be ignored.

First and foremost, there's still Bales Batman Voice - which entirely doesn't work for me. I understand he needs to be scary and also hide his true voice, but while his forced tone sounds cool for one liners like "then you'll love me" or "I'm Batman", it totally falls apart in longer lines and calmer dialogue scenes with the commissioner. I had to supress a small smile on my face sometimes.

Some storyline elements reminded me of a CSI episode. Namely the bullet 3D reproduction along with a perfect finger print - which obviously led into a trap - and the whole sonar thing at the end, which was entirely unbelievable, unnecessary and made no sense. (I especially liked how he used his sonar view to track the joker who was standing right in front of him two seconds ago just to get punched in the face again)

The "social experiment" solution. I thought the experiment with the two ships itself was awesome, but I doubted to begin with that a film like "The Dark Knight" would seriously explore human psychology so deep, rough and dirty - and unfortunately, I was right. The result I was present with was the ultime anti-message to the joker: The worst looking, tallest, meanest bad guy on the ship selflessly sacrifices himself and the entire crew without anyone complaining and on the ship with the "innocent civillians" one guy wants to do it but simply can't. That destroyed a lot of what the film built up to that point on a structural level.

Same with Harvey Dents psychology. The whole ending was utterly cheesy and drowned in pathos. To me, the construction "Harvey Dent, the Knight in shining armor" was never properly established enough to understand Batman go "The public can never know! If they knew he did bad things, everything would go haywire"... wha...?
Two-Face in general was poorly written imo and served as a lowkey stereotype with odd developments. The reason he snapped so entirely was totally beyond me. And as said, made the ending feel even more awkward and made up.
His Make-Up, while technically very very impressive, was an odd design. When his face was seen the first time, the cinema giggled. I had the same initial reaction, as it looked more weird/funny then scary. And the whole dual personality aspect of the character was missing entirely. I missed that whole half/half attempt. Tommy Lee Jones had that better, despite the fact his makeup and general attitude was ridicolous.

And then there were some moments that had me smiling slightly. Namely the scene where the convoy is redirected to another freeway because that burning firetruck is in the way (looks obviously like a trap, I'd say, but I'm no cop) and then the two drivers had this hilarious conversation a la:
"Damn, we have to turn left there now."
"Shit. But in there, we're like sitting ducks if there's a trap!"
"Yeah. Let's hope it's not a trap."


So all in all, I'd say it's a very solid 8.5 / 10 for me. Definately worth the wait.
Posted: Thu, 21st Aug 2008, 4:18pm

Post 169 of 176

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Finally someone else who hasn't went entirely with all the hype.

So far, with the friends I have talked to, there has been 1 thumbs up and 6 thumbs down for this movie. All but one said it was more hype than substance and not as good as the first.

Must be a totally different movie that showed here. At least I'm not alone in my opinion of it.

Bart
Posted: Thu, 21st Aug 2008, 9:46pm

Post 170 of 176

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I thought it was well better then the first. But then again, I'm not the biggest fan of Batman Begins. It was cool, though not "great".
Posted: Thu, 21st Aug 2008, 10:00pm

Post 171 of 176

Jrad

Force: 230 | Joined: 30th Apr 2005 | Posts: 478

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Robert Downey Jr's take on the film-

http://www.moviehole.net/200814729-interview-robert-downey-jr-2
Posted: Thu, 21st Aug 2008, 10:18pm

Post 172 of 176

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

To summarize RDJ's opinion: "Durrr, me no geddit. It suck.". Could've been a bit more constructive, there.
Posted: Fri, 22nd Aug 2008, 2:30am

Post 173 of 176

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

To summarize RDJ's opinion: "Durrr, me no geddit. It suck.". Could've been a bit more constructive, there.
Don't you ever again dare to insult the convict-suave-badass-coolness that is RDJ. Ever. To many extents, he's entirely right about the movie- even if he voices them (offhand to an interviewer too, I would assume; not just loud and publicly) in a disgruntled manner.
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2008, 10:25pm

Post 174 of 176

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20080910/122110708700.html

They're releasing it to theaters again in January, for Oscar season...
Posted: Fri, 12th Sep 2008, 2:09am

Post 175 of 176

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Also probably to get past Titanic!
Posted: Fri, 12th Sep 2008, 2:41am

Post 176 of 176

The FE

Force: 435 | Joined: 10th Apr 2007 | Posts: 580

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

DanielMaher wrote:

my brother won't shut up about how two face isn't dead and he's going to be the next villan!
No dice I'm afraid. I saw on TV that Two Face wont be making an appearance in the next one. A shame really because I was really looking forward to seeing what Nolan would come up with for the character. Johnny Depp sounds pretty decent as the Riddler though. (who is the best Batman villain behind the Joker by the way)