# The Dark Knight review: Gutted



## Wookey (Jul 23, 2008)

I watched The Dark Knight last night on an imax screen after months and months of patient waiting and gleeful anticipation. Sadly, I have to report that claims of brilliance, legendary magnificence and stupendous fabulousness are (as surely we all knew they would be?) greatly exaggerated.

The film is two and a half hours long, but feels like three. We actually thought it was three as we came blinking out of the cinema rubbing our numb arses. It has the plot of three movies squeezed into one film, and for a large part of it I was confused as to what exactly was going on, and where the story was going (not in a 'Oooh, what a nice surprise!' way, but in a 'What a jumbled mess!' way.

First things first; Heath Ledger is good. He's not 'brilliant', 'earth-shattering' or 'Oscar-potential' - but then, this is a Batman movie remember, he was never going to be those things. But in the stage he's given, with the script he's given, the boy did well. His performance is arresting, delicious and noteable. In fact, if it wasn't for him I would be putting this film down as a stinker.

Christian Bale is alright, he has a silly raspy voice that grated after...oooh, about three words. His performance never really touches the emotional depths of Batman Begins, and yes, I'm aware of how that sounds as I'm typing it, but it's true.

The love interest Rachel is dowdy and plain looking, which makes a mockery of the line the Joker speaks when he says: 'And yes, you are BEAUTIFUL!' when she clearly is nothing of the sort (unless Gotham just has very low standards).

The stunts are OK, nothing earth shattering. The special effects are good, the sometime hero Harvey Dent (Twoface, in one of the extra plotlines that wasn't needed) has a great face burn job that looks realistic even though it must be CGI.

Gary Oldman is alright. Everyone is alright, it's just that the plot is pony, there was not a single laugh in there for me (I actually groaned instead of laughed) and the script is dreadful. Really, quite dreadful.

The worst thing is the direction, there are large parts which are confused, especially some fight scenes and car chases. You could have lost an hour of the film and it would have worked better. One theme appears to be the Joker's anarchic nature, he claims to be 'chaos, which can only ever be fair' - and yet he his finely honed and executed schemes are far from chaotic, and this inaccuracy grated on me.

There is one spectacular scene when the Joker, dressed as some lunatic nurse, blows up a hospital, and walks away clapping and walking a stiff-limbed walk like a mad doll. Those few seconds, where the baddie looked like a real madman, and the explosions ripped across the screen, and the humour came to the surface and was real instead of forced, that moment felt like a proper Batman movie. If they had repeated that for three hours, it would have been a far better film.

Another highlight is the 'social experiment' laid by the Joker, with two ferries loaded with explosives. One ferry is full of crooks, the other full of regular people - and each group is given a detonator, with the knowledge that they can each blow up the other boat and save themselves, or neither blow up a boat and risk being blown up at midnight by the Joker anyway. That scene resolves very nicely - but it's all rather rushed, and confused, and under-exploited. Much like the whole film, the good bits fly by, and the bad bits stand out like sore thumbs.

In all, I would urge you to go and see this purely because Heath Ledger's final performance deserves to be seen. That said, I feel quite resentful that the marketing department for Batman have clearly exploited Heath's death and cranked this movie up into the event of the decade, using the promise of a career-statement performance that his was never going to be. We can only ultimately be let down when the promise doesn't come true. There is no Joker soliloquy, no scene in which he steals your breath and which could be forever repeated as evidence of his incredible potential. The most that can be said, perhaps, is that Heath was great enough to mask the flaws of a messy movie - not a skill to be overlooked, but not the work of a legend either.

Finally, this is not the finely crafted review I would normally write (what Wookey, you put effort into this shit?!) but just my first thoughts on waking up this morning. I actually am so disappointed with Dark Knight that I don't feel like crafting a smart-arse review at all, I have better things to do. Like plan what I'm going to wear for Watchmen.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 23, 2008)

I only have until Friday evening to establish how wrong you hopefully are.


Question: What did you think of Batman Begins?

Also: You should probably indicate that your review contains minor spoilers....


----------



## Sadken (Jul 23, 2008)

You said Maggie Gyllenhal is plain and dowdy, your argument is invalid.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 23, 2008)

Sadken said:


> You said Maggie Gyllenhal is plain and dowdy, your argument is invalid.




Well quite.

Even taking into account the Wookster's sexual preferences, it is a pretty wrong-headed viewpoint...


----------



## The Groke (Jul 23, 2008)

He won't reply now for fear of breaking his post-count/tag-line combo.


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 23, 2008)

Lol... do you think that was a flounce post then?


----------



## The Groke (Jul 23, 2008)

BiddlyBee said:


> Lol... do you think that was a flounce post then?



Would be one of the more obtuse ones we have had.....


----------



## g force (Jul 23, 2008)

And if you think Watchmen will be better from "visionary director Zack Snyder"...prepare for disappointment


----------



## T & P (Jul 23, 2008)

I am choosing to ignore the existence of this review (a.k.a there's always one isn't it)


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 23, 2008)

i'm going tomorrow night.

2 and a hlaf hours? 

god my attention span isn't that long. why can;t films be 90 minutes anymore?

i'm mtv generation.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2008)

I watched about half of this on a pretty excellent DVD copy yesterday.

It's ludicrously overrated. So far it's a series of of set pieces rather than a movie, uninvolving and overlong. It's just another superhero action movie . Yes, Heath Ledger is good, but it's the kind of role in which an actor can excel. He's the star of the show, but the post-death hype is ridiculous.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 23, 2008)

tarannau said:


> I watched about half of this on a pretty excellent DVD copy yesterday.
> 
> It's ludicrously overrated. So far it's a series of of set pieces rather than a movie, uninvolving and overlong. It's just another superhero action movie . Yes, Heath Ledger is good, but it's the kind of role in which an actor can excel. He's the star of the show, but the post-death hype is ridiculous.



um sorry if im a bit confused but isnt it a superhero movie


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 23, 2008)

Swarfega said:


> Question: What did you think of Batman Begins?



I think that's a crucial question.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2008)

Though Batman Begins was good fwiw, albeit I'm clearly not sufficient a Batman fanatic enough to put it up there with the best films of all time. One of the best movies of its type, silly ninja business notwithstanding.

This isn't as good a film imo. May give it another try tonight.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 23, 2008)

to be honest ive never expected it to be one of the best films of all time , i just want a decent batman film with a worthy portrial of the joker  hopull this time tomorrow i would have got it


----------



## Liveist (Jul 23, 2008)

Just seen it. Underwhelmed... Heath ledger is sick. Everything else... hmmm...


----------



## Geri (Jul 24, 2008)

Liveist said:


> Just seen it. Underwhelmed... Heath ledger is sick. Everything else... hmmm...



Sick? Is this some kind of youth speak that means the opposite to what I think it means?


----------



## Liveist (Jul 24, 2008)

Geri said:


> Sick? Is this some kind of youth speak that means the opposite to what I think it means?



Yes


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 24, 2008)

SPOILERS!!!!


That review isn't totally right, but it's not totally wrong either. The sound mix is appalling; during the final set piece the music drowns out what everyone is saying. Gordon's lines at the end are incoherent because of it. This is a really stupid thing.

The film is essentially too long and confuses itself in places with plot developments and twists that just seem to happen. I have no idea at what point Harvey and Rachel got kidnapped. At all. One minute they nab the Joker and the next...

Two Face is essentially wasted. He serves an important purpose to the Joker's plans and his makeup/cgi looks spot on, but for a major Batman villain his character was punked. 

There are a lot of silly cheesy moments intended as not quite comic but light relief; these are hamfisted and cliched. Interestingly the Joker is in none of them.

On the other hand the film is emotionally charged on a level beyond any superhero film yet made. It makes you want to fight crime and punch terrorists in the face. The Joker is an unrepentant pyschopath; he is not the clown prince of crime with a fistful of joke shop weapons, but a deranged killer through and through, very dark.

Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne is still an irritating twat, unlike Keaton's loner eccentric whose emotional scars were visible as quirks. Plus I hate the way Bale speaks (he's a good actor though). He also seems to have an unbelievable amount of money that he can do and buy anything to the point of deus ex machina. 

The big problem with Batman is that he is a coward. He doesn't pull the trigger and Hollywood, for the most part, doesn't pull the trigger either. This makes the whole concept rather flawed. Characters like the Joker just become tiresome after a while (though no here, The Joker steals the film by a country mile despite actually saying relatively little) because they are a) utterly unrepentant and unchanging, and b) way beyond too dangerous. Essentially the only way for Batman, in any logical unvierse, to deal with someone like that would be to kill them. But even here he chickens out. This is of course because Batman is the principled good guy who, no matter how Dark the Dark Knight and how murky the water he swims in, he is the principled good guy. Unfortunately that becomes entirely fatuous and unbelievable after a while and the scene on the boats in the end where the people don't pull the trigger is a huge cop-out (hint: if i were the guy who took the detonator on the boat full of innocents, I'd have pressed that button  if it meant not dying, fuck the others). It just doesn't quite work.

On the whole possibly the best superhero movie yet made, but also the most confused and flawed simultaneously.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 24, 2008)

Meh.

I always ignore threads about films on Urban anyway.  They tend to be super-whingey


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 24, 2008)

Looks like you're doing a bang up job then


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 24, 2008)

Well just seen it !!  i feel a bit strange abut it , i thoroughly enjoyed it , however those post above me do have  valid point !!! ledgers performance was wikkid but i feel somewhat empty now  , gonna d/load it and give it a second viewing 





!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 24, 2008)

I think perhaps there's too much happening. As I say I didn't notice the part where Dent and Rachel got kidnapped and also, apparently the Joker switched their addresses so that's how Bats ends up rescuing Dent (or not, in fact).

I can't imagine this on cam would be worth watching at all, imho.


----------



## spacemonkey (Jul 24, 2008)

electrogirl said:


> i'm mtv generation.



Innit, I can't concentrate on one sodding hollywood movie for 2.5 hours.

I can't even be bothered to finish th....


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 24, 2008)

but it doesnt feel like 2.5 hrs long , it does feel long but you are also captivated by every scene imo


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 24, 2008)

Not as impressed as I expected to be.   The sound is atrocious, really.   You can hardly make out Batman most of the time.   Now a spoiler....

SPOILER HERE!

Not this bit the next........I wasn't impressed with the "let's spy on everyone in the city because we can stop a terror attack" business, either.

And to be honest the action scenes were a bit flaccid.   They were all half-second shots joined together with no interesting moves.

Maggie Gyllenhal was rubbish too, looking like a stoned Cilla Black.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 24, 2008)

See, I find it weird that with that amount of money and expertise, they would produce a film with "poor sound" to the extent that everyone seems to be claiming....

Might it just be poor cinema audio-kit setup?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 24, 2008)

Swarfega said:


> See, I find it weird that with that amount of money and expertise, they would produce a film with "poor sound" to the extent that everyone seems to be claiming....
> 
> Might it just be poor cinema audio-kit setup?



I think its because Bale mixed up acting with mumbling.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 24, 2008)

Swarfega said:


> See, I find it weird that with that amount of money and expertise, they would produce a film with "poor sound" to the extent that everyone seems to be claiming....
> 
> Might it just be poor cinema audio-kit setup?


It's also _really really _loud!

Pass the zimmer!

But seriously, the audio mixing is fucked up.


----------



## bmd (Jul 25, 2008)

Batman was nowhere near as good as he was in Batman Begins and the direction was really poor. I'm guessing Nolan must have seen how Heath Ledger was playing it and concentrated on him, leaving Christian Bale to flounder around being piss-poor as Batman.

Best scene was in the police cell where Bale and Ledger squared up, Ledger carried it but that was the only scene where I felt that Batman was willing to actually let go and have some balls.

5/10


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 25, 2008)

Wookey said:


> I watched The Dark Knight last night on an imax screen after months and months of patient waiting and gleeful anticipation. Sadly, I have to report that claims of brilliance, legendary magnificence and stupendous fabulousness are (as surely we all knew they would be?) greatly exaggerated.)



I stopped reading your analysis at this point because I havent seen it yet, but my kids have, and they say it's crazy good. For the moment, I'm going to take their word over yours, ok?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 25, 2008)

I suppose I could add a "Popular Movie Panned on U75 Shocker!"


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 25, 2008)

Am gonna wait till next week to see it for myself (shields eyes from rest of thread)........

My eldest went to see it last eve and said he thought it was awesome !


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 25, 2008)

i saw it last night, i don't if i'm the best person to comment really cos i'm not a huge batman movie fan, but i do like a good comic book action film.

well, i thought it was all over the shop! it was too long, and it had about a million plotlines all in one.

i didn't really care for batman, i thought he didn't really do much?! the joker was brilliant, they should've given him more screen time really i think.

maggie gyllenhal was, i hate to say it because i love her normally, bland bland bland.

i just think the script was nafforama, i know it's a big action movie but do they have to crack out the awful cliches..like the 'slap and hug' situation, and also they did that classic thing where batman starts to leave and then someone says 'oh, and batman' so batman turns round and the person pauses and says 'good luck' and batman leaves without saying anything.

CHEESE!

i guess i just didn't really feel like i was on anyone's side, apart from Gotham's. Rachel, Dent and Batman didn't inspire any sympathy from me really.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2008)

I thought Batman Begins was overindulgent shite so I hope this is slightly better. The Dark Knight was one of my favourite graphic novels. But I'm not reading Wookies review as I never read reviews before seeing a film. I'll read it after like.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 25, 2008)

If you didn't like BB you definitely won't like this. It's also not (as you probably know) based on the graphic novel.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2008)

Not even a little bit?


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 25, 2008)

Don't understand why people approach comic book adaptation films with such high expectations. Surely the prime audiences for them are kids and nerdy teenagers? What counts is whether _they_ and not adult cinemagoers are entertained by them.

You might as well criticise 'Herbie the Lovebug' for not being a very good road movie.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Don't understand why people approach comic book adaptation films with such high expectations. Surely the prime audiences for them are kids and nerdy teenagers? What counts is whether _they_ and not adult cinemagoers are entertained by them.
> 
> You might as well criticise 'Herbie the Lovebug' for not being a very good road movie.



Well, because films like Batman Begins and to a lesser extent, Iron Man show that they can be done excellently.

I'd argue that the makers know well that it's not just kids and nerdy teenagers coming to watch these films. It's also nerdy grown-ups who've come to expect a bit more from superhero movie.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 25, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Not even a little bit?


In both cases no. 

The Dark Knight is just the nicnkname Batman has always had. The film(s) were never based on the story in The Dark Knight Returns. (or, thankfully, Strikes Back).


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Well, because films like Batman Begins and to a lesser extent, Iron Man show that they can be done excellently.
> 
> I'd argue that the makers know well that it's not just kids and nerdy teenagers coming to watch these films. It's also nerdy grown-ups who've come to expect a bit more from superhero movie.



True, especially as it's the older people who were into comics, kids aren't so much these days what with the internet and consoles and shit. Dark Knight Returns was published 22 years ago.

I'll see this for Ledger's Joker but I'm tired of this constant remaking of Batman, personally. Hollywood man, couldn't even leave The Hulk for a few years before remaking it in a way that is no less shit than the original. I guess when your President is a crook you need all the fake heroes you can get.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> In both cases no.
> 
> The Dark Knight is just the nicnkname Batman has always had. The film(s) were never based on the story in The Dark Knight Returns. (or, thankfully, Strikes Back).



Luckily I didn't read those 

This series seems most related to Year One and The Killing Joke. At the very least they must have been an influence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Luckily I didn't read those
> 
> This series seems most related to Year One and The Killing Joke. At the very least they must have been an influence.



Killing Joke has been referenced as a source by the director iirc


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2008)

I watched it at the IMAX last night, and while I want to watch it a couple more times before offering any in-depth views, I just wanted to say that I was blown away. I thought it was a phenomenal film, a non-stop, tense thriller, where if I'm honest the action set-pieces came a distant second to other things that were going on in the film.

Like I said I want to see it again, as this was the first time I've been to the IMAX and as it's such an intense film it's very possible a second or third viewing without the 'wow'-factor of seeing it all for the first time will allow me to concentrate on other aspects of the film, but I just wanted to provide a counter-balance to the generally negative opinions on this thread.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 25, 2008)

I saw it last night.

My score: 8/10

Definitely one of the best films I've seen this year amidst a heap of rubbish films (Cloverfield excepted). Heath Ledger was superb and played the villain with poetic style, excellent comedy timing and brillianty evil.

Christian Bale could have been a bit better I thought. He was excellent as Batman but less so as Bruce Wayne. 

Michael Cane was excellent. Morgan Freeman less so.

Overall, I think the film was superb but they could have cut down the ending which was dragged out just a bit at the end. But it doesn't ruin the film at all. Well worth seeing a few times, because I think there's a lot I missed.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 25, 2008)

Glad to see some more positive reviews.


Going tonight, so let's see eh....


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 25, 2008)

Structaural said:


> True, especially as it's the older people who were into comics, kids aren't so much these days what with the internet and consoles and shit. Dark Knight Returns was published 22 years ago.



That makes sense.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 25, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I stopped reading your analysis at this point because I havent seen it yet, but my kids have, and they say it's crazy good. For the moment, I'm going to take their word over yours, ok?



I thought it didn't live up to the hype, but I doubt if any movie could live up to the buildup this one got.  In all, it was an entertaining way to spend 2.3 hrs.   Well worth my $9.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2008)

Mark Kermode's Review; I think he makes some good points, both positive and negative.

Reading responses from other people, it does seem that one of the biggest points of contention is just how much they tried to pack into the film and the 'chaotic' nature of it. Those who like it seem to have gone along with it, possibly at the expense of asking certain questions, whereas those who didn't like it noticed the holes a lot more.

As I said before, I'm really eager to see it again and see what I think of it a second or third time, now I know what's coming and so won't get so caught up in the rollercoaster ride.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 25, 2008)

Can't believe it's here! I'm standing outside the cinema waiting for the doors to open, can't fucking wait!!


----------



## Vash (Jul 25, 2008)

I think the spying on everyone's phones bit might have had a hidden message somewhere. 

Didn't get why the people went on the boats must have blinked and missed it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 25, 2008)

Spoiler here.   So look away if you haven't seen it.



Vash said:


> I think the spying on everyone's phones bit might have had a hidden message somewhere...


And maybe the police turning a blind eye when The Caped 'Crusader' turns on the beating up in the police cells to get important info which could save lives?


----------



## derf (Jul 26, 2008)

Wookey said:


> I watched The Dark Knight last night .............................................
> I actually am so disappointed with Dark Knight that I don't feel like crafting a smart-arse review at all, I have better things to do. Like plan what I'm going to wear for Watchmen.



Well I was going to spend Rp 10,000 (50+p) on the pirate but I may give it a miss now.


----------



## tommers (Jul 26, 2008)

derf said:


> Well I was going to spend Rp 10,000 (50+p) on the pirate but I may give it a miss now.




hey, push the boat out, treat yourself.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

Sorry Wookey but you're talking arse, saw it last night and it was fucking wicked!!


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 26, 2008)

too right - it was fucking amazing!!!!
*
SPOLIER*

my only problem with the movie was how Two-Face had such a small role.
FFS, he was meant to be a crime boss!!!

Bale couldn't be more of the perfect Bruce Wayne!
but as Batman, his voice irritates.

it's the best Batman yet.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 26, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> my only problem with the movie was how Two-Face had such a small role.
> FFS, he was meant to be a crime boss!!!



The role was not at all small. I'd go as far to say that he actually played the most pivotal role in the film as his character was reflecting the themes of duality, corruption and psychosis.

I thought Nolan did a good job with it to be honest, although I'm in total agreement with the fact that the film needed trimming and a bit more clarity at times. But overall, you have to say, this is a superhero film with the ability to channel the more darker elements of humanity, which is unlike any other films in it's genre.


----------



## mrsfran (Jul 26, 2008)

I have to agree with you Wookey - I kind of enjoyed it, but it was nowhere near as good as I was expecting it to be. Much of the plot was utterly ludicrous, they didn't make nearly enough of two-face, and while the Joker by far and away stole the show (and I loved the nurse scene too), it was still only above average.

And while I'm fine with a caped crusader foiling criminals, the plot holes were just too gaping for me to overlook. Where did the Joker get that knife from in the police cell? Why didn't they strip-search him? How on earth did he get the entire hospital rigged up with explosives/barrels of petrol without any one noticing? How did two-face emerge from the hospital in a full suit and tie? Did they know that Gordon was going to get shot at, or was it just fortuitous? Why must Morgan Freeman be such a Kindly-Eyes Wise Black Man all the damn time?

I give this film 6 out of 10.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2008)

That was FUCKING AWESOME!

The opening sequence of the bank robbery was brilliant, Ledger was flawless throughout. I have rarely felt such actual tension in a 'superhero' film.

The first third felt like a proper thriller that happened to be a Batman film (a bit like Casino Royale in that respect). There was perhaps a little too much plot squeezed in, but all in all an amazing achievement for what is an inherently absurd premise.

9 utility belts out of 10.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 26, 2008)

the opening scene bank robbery properly sent chills down me. perfect.

the rest was confused and rushed all over the place.

why oh why to they do all those swirlly panning shots??? they do my head and look shite.

the chase scene felt really tacked on.........but when  the joker was going ""c'mon . c'mon hit me ,, do it  " at the end that was fab.

I liked how the boat-bombs-thought-experiment resolved itself ....warm glow in my heart...

...they used different film for some of the scenes didn't they...???



anyway a film of good preformances instead of a good film as such..


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 26, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Sorry Wookey but you're talking arse, saw it last night and it was fucking wicked!!



Glad you liked it, I'm off to see it tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 26, 2008)

I think it was a good film it had its flaws most of whih have already been pointed out. If it hadn't been for the massive hype I would have left the cinema thinking it was brilliant. Did the film seem to take th piss out of the series that started with the Burton films and/or fan critcisms of them? Such as Batman knocking the jokerff the bulding then saving him or the bit were it appeared for a second Twoface flipped the coin twice to get the result he wanted? I think the joker knife bit and when/where Dent and Rachel were kidnapped was purposefully left to the imagination or to be put on as an extra on the DVD. Didn't Ledger fail to complete a couple of scenes? Maybe they were of some importance.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 26, 2008)

Structaural said:


> True, especially as it's the older people who were into comics, kids aren't so much these days what with the internet and consoles and shit. Dark Knight Returns was published 22 years ago.
> 
> I'll see this for Ledger's Joker but I'm tired of this constant remaking of Batman, personally. Hollywood man, couldn't even leave The Hulk for a few years before remaking it in a way that is no less shit than the original. I guess when your President is a crook you need all the fake heroes you can get.



Yeah but didn't the Batman mythos deserve a really good series of films?  After all, the original 4 weren't that great.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 26, 2008)

Augie March said:


> The role was not at all small. I'd go as far to say that he actually played the most pivotal role in the film as his character was reflecting the themes of duality, corruption and psychosis.
> 
> I thought Nolan did a good job with it to be honest, although I'm in total agreement with the fact that the film needed trimming and a bit more clarity at times. But overall, you have to say, this is a superhero film with the ability to channel the more darker elements of humanity, which is unlike any other films in it's genre.



true. yeah very true. 
upon reflection, yep.

in the first bale one, we saw the transgression of bruce wayne into Batman, the second it was harvey dent into Two Face.

i loved it nevertheless and so happy they didn't kill off The Joker!!!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 26, 2008)

The Burton films worked because they embraced, as only Burton can, the madness of the city and it's denizens; Batman included. Keaton's portrayal of Bruce Wayne worked better than Bale's which is as pedestrian as the city. Elfman soundtrack FTW.

That element of absurdity is something missing from these new movies which, by lacking that ironic sense of almost self referentiality, are a bit too poe faced. And poe faced doesn't quite work when you have a character like the Joker.

Turning Dent into Two Face is something the Joker would do, but Two Face deserves better than this; it also stretched the boundaries a little. He wasn't even remotely greatful that peopel tried to save his life and seemed far too eager to believe that no one went to save Rachel, or that the Joker, being ultiamtely responsible, stopped her from being saved by switching their addresses. A bit too contrived.

And I still maintain that GCPD are utterly stupid. 'Hey let's lock up the Joker without checking for weapons, hidden items, or removing his makeup'.

Still the best way to get him to talk would have been to give him an hour with Jeremy Kyle: 'it's Graham on the show folks!'


----------



## Sabu (Jul 26, 2008)

Superdupastupor said:
			
		

> anyway a film of good preformances instead of a good film as such..



Sums it up for me.  Enjoyed it loads though. 

Wasn't Joker's knife to the throat of the cop a shard of glass off the two way mirror in the interview room?  At least that's what i took it for.


----------



## Vash (Jul 26, 2008)

Wonder what effect the Jokers its better to stab someone than shot someone line will have on knife crime.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> too right - it was fucking amazing!!!!
> *
> SPOLIER*
> 
> ...



Well it's possible he might survive but I doubt it though tbh I thought his role was perfectly proportionate given the film was really about the Joker. I didn't mind the Batman gruff voice really, I like the sound of his controlled rage! Can't fucking wait for the next one!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm going to see it tonight on the basis of Wookey's review, because he's usually wrong.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 26, 2008)

What knife in the police cell? The one he uses to hold the policeman hostage? That's a shard of broken glass. Maybe i missed something.

I liked it, wonder how they'll take it on from there though and didn't like the bullshit bit at the end, since when did Gordon get overcome with literary aspersions? He's supposed to be a police officer not Homer, i wish it'd had been drowned out more


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

Apparently you can watch the whole thing online here: http://76.12.251.170/watch_18485.html


----------



## Vash (Jul 26, 2008)

Don't see anything there.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

You need Div X installed, I'm watching it right now and it's a fairly good copy with decent loading times.


----------



## Vash (Jul 26, 2008)

Sorry got it now.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

Vash said:


> Its just the trailer.



Weird I've been watching the film for the last 30 odd minutes on that link. It's not the trailer as far as I can see!


----------



## Vash (Jul 26, 2008)

Got it now.  Got lost after I had to download DIVX but found it again.  Wouldn't you get in trouble for linking to that?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

*shrugs* You gonna grass to the mods?


----------



## Vash (Jul 26, 2008)

Nope but they might notice it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

Vash said:


> Nope but they might notice it.





True but it wouldn't be the first time something pirate orientated had been posted on here.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 26, 2008)

missfran said:


> And while I'm fine with a caped crusader foiling criminals, the plot holes were just too gaping for me to overlook. Where did the Joker get that knife from in the police cell? Why didn't they strip-search him?





Awesome Wells said:


> And I still maintain that GCPD are utterly stupid. 'Hey let's lock up the Joker without checking for weapons, hidden items, or removing his makeup'.


You two, see below and pay more attention 


Bob_the_lost said:


> What knife in the police cell? The one he uses to hold the policeman hostage? That's a shard of broken glass. Maybe i missed something.





Sabu said:


> Wasn't Joker's knife to the throat of the cop a shard of glass off the two way mirror in the interview room?  At least that's what i took it for.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++



missfran;7819514]How on earth did he get the entire hospital rigged up with explosives/barrels of petrol without any one noticing?[/QUOTE] There are often these kind of holes in these kind of films said:


> Did they know that Gordon was going to get shot at, or was it just fortuitous?


 I wasn't sure, but I think Gordon got lucky by not dying, and then the concocted the ruse to trap the Joker after that.

I also agree that I thought Two-Face was somewhat underused, by which I mean specifically Two-Face and not the whole Harvey character. Having built Harvey Dent up the entire film, they didn't take much time to explore Two-Face's character, or the whole split-personality, Harvey/Two-Face dichotomy. Thought that was a shame, but still thought what they did do was very good.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 26, 2008)

no trailer i ever saw was 2.23 hours long!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> no trailer i ever saw was 2.23 hours long!


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2008)

The acting was excellent, from Oldman, Ledger and the Dent character. Bale didn't really play the main role in this one, but did the job.

The sound was fine, I heard every single word. The bit at the end was loud because it was climaxing towards the final moments. 

There was more than one plot line, boo hoo to those who can't cope with this.

There were comedy moments where people in the audience were laughing. The Joker's magic trick at the beginning was both funny and disgusting. 

Stop whinging.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 26, 2008)

mk12 said:


> The Joker's magic trick at the beginning was both funny and disgusting.


 I thought that in particular was a brilliantly efficient character introduction, really tells you what you need to know in (almost literally) one quick movement, that is also very cool in itself.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2008)

People laughed then went, "urgh..."


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 26, 2008)

Unsurprisingly, wookey's review is completely wrong, it's a very very good movie.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 26, 2008)

mk12 said:


> People laughed then went, "urgh..."


 he he, yeah, pretty much the same reaction when I saw it. First they laugh at the joke, then they realise exactly what happened...


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2008)

Good trick though. I might use it at a party.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2008)

mk12 said:


> The acting was excellent, from Oldman, Ledger and the Dent character. Bale didn't really play the main role in this one, but did the job.
> 
> The sound was fine, I heard every single word. The bit at the end was loud because it was climaxing towards the final moments.
> 
> ...



Well said. Especially about the humour.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2008)

The biggest laugh in the cinema was when the young lawyer tried to blackmail Morgan Freeman's character, and he said something along the lines of:

"We're talking about one the of the wealthiest men in the world, who is also a vigilante who has killed numerous people and can't be caught. And you're trying to blackmail him".


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 27, 2008)

Yep same here! That was fucking funny!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2008)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I thought it didn't live up to the hype, but I doubt if any movie could live up to the buildup this one got.  In all, it was an entertaining way to spend 2.3 hrs.   Well worth my $9.



I'm lucky, I suppose. I haven't been watching much tv, so, other than the fact that Heath Ledger is dead, I don't know much about the move, even now. I hope to get to see it shortly.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 27, 2008)

mk12 said:


> The acting was excellent, from Oldman, Ledger and the Dent character. Bale didn't really play the main role in this one, but did the job.
> 
> The sound was fine, I heard every single word. The bit at the end was loud because it was climaxing towards the final moments.
> 
> ...


Actually there wasn't more than one plotline, there was just no need to shoehorn in one of Batman's other main foes: Two Face.

It was just confused in it's direction and delivery. The film was too long, really. I agree largely with Mark Kermode's review.

Problem with superhero movies is that the more highbrow and 'dark' you try to make them, the more contrived it becomes. That's just the nature of the beast since we are dealing with people in rubber and capes. That's why I liked the Burton movies because they embraced that absurdity. These two films lack that, and, where BB had a definite focus, this kinda doesn't. BB also worked because it was a more personal movie; TDK tries to be more thematic in dealing with 'current events' (ie terrorism) and so gets a bit more contrived. It's a superhero movie,I don't really need a lecture on torture and terrorism (especially from characters who thus behave pretty stupidly).

It's still a good film, but it could have been better edited and tighter. Instead it moves around too much, failing to focus on its main character (well, Batman), andstumbles on it's own message.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 27, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> Actually there wasn't more than one plotline, there was just no need to shoehorn in one of Batman's other main foes: Two Face.
> 
> .



I have to disagree with you , the whole harvey dent / two face device was pretty essential , I like the way the Joker changed him from being ' gothams white knite ' to become a twisted ' dark knight ' which brings a whole new level to the films name


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 27, 2008)

I understand that, but in so doing they reduce one of Batman's main enemies to nothing. That doesn't sit riht with me. Plus it was a rather contrived descent into madness; it's not really believable that he becomes utterly psychotic. Not only does he refuse all surgery to his face, but he completely blames all the people who tried to save Rachel, even though they saved him, while he remains utterly blind to the fact that he's been manipulated by the Joker. So it's a little far fetched - and then he just gets sacked by Batman at the end and, well, game over (well perhaps...who knows!)


----------



## Santino (Jul 27, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> I understand that, but in so doing they reduce one of Batman's main enemies to nothing. That doesn't sit riht with me. Plus it was a rather contrived descent into madness; it's not really believable that he becomes utterly psychotic.


Quite right, he should have walked out of that hospital thinking 'Well, the love of my life is dead and half of my face has been melted, but still, life goes on, eh?'


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 27, 2008)

it's officially the best film ever on IMDB after 135,443 votes.
Rotten Tomatoes has given it 95%.

gee...some people just love a good whinge on u75.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Quite right, he should have walked out of that hospital thinking 'Well, the love of my life is dead and half of my face has been melted, but still, life goes on, eh?'


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 27, 2008)

i also loved the 'realism' in that movie.

it just all of the other superhero stuff is way too polished and cartoony, ie, hulk, iron man, x men etc.

batman was vulnerable as fuck.
he actually got hurt and the death count in this film was huge!!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Quite right, he should have walked out of that hospital thinking 'Well, the love of my life is dead and half of my face has been melted, but still, life goes on, eh?'


or, he gets out of hospital and doesn't blame Gordon's kids for Rachel's death.

His madness was nothing of the kind; he just came across as a sulky kid with a fetish for flipping a coin. It wasn't insanity it was calculated.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 27, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> It wasn't insanity it was calculated.



okay judge judy.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 27, 2008)

What like everyone who loses a loved one or gets horribly scarred becomes a schizoid killer with a comicbook schtick?

It just stretched things a bit too far and was a waste of a great Batman villain.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 27, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> or, he gets out of hospital and doesn't blame Gordon's kids for Rachel's death.




i think youre missing the point , he doesnt blame Gordons kids for her death , he blames Gordon and wants him to know what it feels like to tell your loved ones that it was going to be ok when it really isnt


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 27, 2008)

oh and it actually gets better with repeated viewings , maybe because the hype machine is not relevant


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 27, 2008)

I'm sure this was originally going to be the first of two films made together with the first focusing on the joker and the second on Two face. Maybe two face was just lying really still at the end.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 27, 2008)

i dont think harvey is dead , just locked up in Arkham , however they might just let the public think he is


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 27, 2008)

nah, i hope this move on from dent.

and introduce hugo strange.

or if they must bring back The Joker for number 3, hope they introduce his nurse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Quinn.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 27, 2008)

I am not a fan of the comics, but I _know_ that this films portrayl of Two Face must have been incorrect, and not in keeping with the original stories. Harvey Dent was only two face for a few days? I don't think so.

It's a shame they killed him off. They should have just made it so he went missing.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 27, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Apparently you can watch the whole thing online here: http://76.12.251.170/watch_18485.html



It now apears to have been removed


----------



## mk12 (Jul 27, 2008)

Good. Go to the cinema where films were intended to be shown.


----------



## jæd (Jul 28, 2008)

Wookey said:


> I watched The Dark Knight last night on an imax screen after months and months of patient waiting and gleeful anticipation. Sadly, I have to report that claims of brilliance, legendary magnificence and stupendous fabulousness are (as surely we all knew they would be?) greatly exaggerated.



Well done. You've reviewed another summer blockbuster like its a serious movie, rather than a comic-book film with plot-holes you can drive the Batmobile through... 

Its an ok film, Heath Ledger is rather good, and its the first half-decent Batman film since the first one...


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

I went in expecting to be disappointed and came out really happy with it.  It exceeded my expectations and I'd happily go and see it again.  

I thought Gary Oldman was excellent in it, Heath Ledger deserves all the praise he's getting for a brilliantly observed, sinister performance full of facial mannerisms, tics etc. - all the proper psycho stuff.  

Bale's "Batman voice" is fucking annoying as hell though!  Not spoiling anything but the nurse bit was absolutely iconic stuff.


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 28, 2008)

Nurse bit was great 

I ignored the naysayers who were trouncing the film and really enjoyed it. I did not feel it dragged. Not at one point was I bored or not actually taking note of what was going on. Have to agree with the comment on Bale's Batman Voice, little bit to try hard if you ask me.


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

Yeah, re: the pace, it never seemed to lag at all.  I was totally enthralled throughout, which has very much not been the case during Superman, Spiderman I,II & III etc. etc.

About his voice, obviously the idea is to disguise his real voice and all that but....come on!


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 28, 2008)

i couldn't stop thinking gary oldman looked like ned flanders


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

Well I'm just glad I didn't speak to you before I went to see it then cos, yeah, he completely, completely does.  What an actor though; I know it's an actor's job and all that but he was completely convincing in this and equally completely convincing in, say, True Romance at completely the other end of the spectrum.

I'm actually giving him props on facebook as we speak.


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 28, 2008)

electrogirl said:


> i couldn't stop thinking gary oldman looked like ned flanders



Bwhahaha! I see it now


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 28, 2008)

electrogirl said:


> i couldn't stop thinking gary oldman looked like ned flanders


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 28, 2008)

Sadken said:


> I'm actually giving him props on facebook as we speak.



facebook props? god why don't you just marry him? or something.


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 28, 2008)

TitanSound said:


> Bwhahaha! I see it now



did noone else notice?!

i kpet thinking he was going to say okely dokely batmannio


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

electrogirl said:


> facebook props? god why don't you just marry him? or something.



What, he might get wind of it and think "that's the best kinda review you can get - one from a fan, on facebook."


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 28, 2008)

good point about the pace.
i didn't think it dragged.
and the only disappointment was that it had to end!

and the story line was clear as fuck.
what's with the confusion?
it had 3 main story lines and a couple of twists.

where's the confusion?


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

Spoiler: secret stuff



I thought the only let down was that the Joker was left alive at the end.  There didn't seem to be any resolution for his character,  I mean, are we supposed to believe he got sent down for 15 years or something?   For such a great performance I thought they could've seen him off in style.  I suppose they were leaving the door open for a return at that stage?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 28, 2008)

That was the idea Sadken


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

Spoiler: oh yeah?



So he did definitely die after the film was wrapped up then?  I couldn't remember if he was partially digitally put in after his death


----------



## CharlieAddict (Jul 28, 2008)

spoiler:

the joker gets sent to arkham asylum in the comics.
they'll probably introduce her later in the films.


----------



## Sadken (Jul 28, 2008)

Mmmmmm....Harley quim....


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Jul 29, 2008)

It was good. The Joker was the best thing about it...


----------



## Firky (Jul 29, 2008)

Why don't people use the spoiler code? 

Anyway. I enjoyed. Much better than walle, I know what I'd take my kid to see


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 29, 2008)

Wookey said:


> It has the plot of three movies squeezed into one film, and for a large part of it I was confused as to what exactly was going on, and where the story was going (not in a 'Oooh, what a nice surprise!' way, but in a 'What a jumbled mess!' way.



I thought it only had one plot ( although it was nicely complex ) and I understood everything . I know your a clever bloke wookey but if I didn't I'd have thought you were some kind of gibering idiot not to be able to follow the plot


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 29, 2008)

firky said:


> Why don't people use the spoiler code?


 I'm a big advocate of the spoiler code, but I figured that given this was the 'review' thread it would generally be populated by people who have seen it and should generally be assumed that there will be spoilers in the discussions contained hereon within, here.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 30, 2008)

HArley would have been better than two face in that role as corrupted person.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 30, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> HArley would have been better than two face in that role as corrupted person.



Why? The charcter of Two Face was always the epitome of a good person being corrupted. I thought that the film and Eckhart in particular, portrayed that part of the story really well.


----------



## Jambooboo (Aug 3, 2008)

Meh - it was better than shite like the last _Spiderman_ movie but it isn't anything like as good as say _The Crow_. Don't see what was so great about Ledger's performance either. Drab love-interest n'all.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 3, 2008)

Jambooboo said:


> it isn't anything like as good as say _The Crow_. .



I rally hope your being sarcastic . The Crow was fecking shite


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 3, 2008)

The Crow wasn't shite but TDK pisses all over it from a great height imo.


----------



## elevendayempire (Aug 3, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The Crow wasn't shite.


The Crow had that incredibly wanky emo scene where he plays the guitar on the rooftop. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 3, 2008)

The final 1/4 of The Crow was an incredible mess.

if you want proper shite - SPAWN.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 3, 2008)

Load of fascist drivel, apparently.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-dont-believe-in-harvey-dent.html


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 3, 2008)

Barking_Mad said:


> Load of fascist drivel, apparently.
> 
> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-dont-believe-in-harvey-dent.html





> In fact, that part of Gotham's police department which isn't bought off by the Joker relies




apart from this being factually inacurate the whole of that "review" is utter crap


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2008)

Termite Man said:


> apart from this being factually inacurate the whole of that "review" is utter crap






this bit cracked me up





> The Batman is a man of steel, unlike Bruce Wayne, who is merely super-hunky and dashing. He has no limits, and can survive flesh wounds, stabbing, crashes, and falls from a great height, without putting a dent in his schedule. He moves with a fluidity and speed that must make him the envy of the Parkour kids, appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing noiselessly. His ferocious masculine growl is an exaggerated imitation of Dirty Harry. He is the ruthless, overbearing superego of Gotham city, animated not by compassion or solidarity but by an obsessive conscience. "The most urgent task of the man of steel," Klaus Theweleit argued, "is to pursue, to dam in, and to subdue any force that threatens to transform him back into the horribly disorganized jumble of flesh, hair, skin, bones, intestines and feelings that calls itself human." People turn to men of steel in order to restore the imperilled fantasy of immortality, by ensuring that it is others who die. But the men of steel, whatever their protests to the contrary, do not desire an end to the chaos and destruction. They adore it, and are lost without it. If Bruce Wayne no longer had his epic fight against mega-crime, he might have to deal with picket lines at his company gates, people trying to 'redistribute' his wealth, immigrant workers becoming politically assertive, public prosecutors bashing on his doors to investigate his environmental or labour code violations, all of that petty stuff that real-life CEOs have to deal with. His romantic interests might realise that he was unworthy of love too, and anyone unfortunate enough to marry him would discover a controlling personality given to violent rages, a megalomaniac who spies on her every move through his system of cameras and hidden mics. And what's with all the secret chambers and torture equipment? He might even prove to be rather dim, bigoted and narcissistic, a more handsome version of Donald Trump. As for Harvey Dent, his 'idealism' would prove to be as tyrannical as it is selective. He would be rounding up petty drug offenders and shoplifters, 'cleaning the streets' of prostitutes and undesirables, jailing the homeless, going after the damned radicals and peaceniks.


----------



## Biglittlefish (Aug 3, 2008)

Seen it. Really liked it. It played things straight enough for me to be drawn in. Better than the first one. The highest compliment i could give it is that I wasn't bored once in two and a half hours. The plot was complex in blockbuster terms I guess, but I can't see why an adult would find that a bad thing. It certainly wasn't 'all over the place' In fact, it was great to see things not coming to an easy resolution. As for the OPs comments about the direction, a director directs the performances of the actors, not the car chases. And he did a v good job. I've always though Nolan was overrated but with this and The prestige he's really coming into his own.


----------



## Jambooboo (Aug 3, 2008)

Termite Man said:


> I rally hope your being sarcastic . The Crow was fecking shite



_The Crow_ is a fantastic film - great soundtrack too. _V For Vendetta_ was good n'all - far better than _Dark Knight_.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2008)

Jambooboo said:


> _V For Vendetta_ was good n'all - far better than _Dark Knight_.



Oh dear oh dear oh dear


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 3, 2008)

elevendayempire said:


> The Crow had that incredibly wanky emo scene where he plays the guitar on the rooftop. Your argument is invalid.



Er one crap scene doesn't make the whole film crap! You're arguement is invalid by that assertion.


----------



## Firky (Aug 3, 2008)

FUCK.

already posted.

cunts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> Oh dear oh dear oh dear


#


would batman say this?



> Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."




there ya go then


----------



## Firky (Aug 3, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> Oh dear oh dear oh dear



Don't worry. He's a fucking idiot hated by most people on the boards.


----------



## Jambooboo (Aug 3, 2008)

firky said:


> Don't worry. He's a fucking idiot hated by most people on the boards.



LOL.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 3, 2008)

Jambooboo said:


> _The Crow_ is a fantastic film - great soundtrack too. _V For Vendetta_ was good n'all - far better than _Dark Knight_.



now you're being silly...


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 3, 2008)

firky said:


> Don't worry. He's a fucking idiot hated by most people on the boards.



Ah, glad I'm not on my own with that


----------



## Jambooboo (Aug 3, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Ah, glad I'm not on my own with that



LOL. Go take a walk somewhere, y'know some fresh air. It'll help.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 3, 2008)

V For Vendetta had character, TDK is a pile of pish.


----------



## gsv (Aug 3, 2008)

Only read p1 and p7, so peeps may have said everything here.  But...

Too long
Too many plot threads getting subsumed/lost
Not a Batman (the character) I recognised (I felt this realls strongly in his 1st scene)
Too many deaths - they strain the plot
And far too fucking violent for a 12A 

GS(v)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Wookey said:


> I watched The Dark Knight last night on an imax screen after months and months of patient waiting and gleeful anticipation. Sadly, I have to report that claims of brilliance, legendary magnificence and stupendous fabulousness are (as surely we all knew they would be?) greatly exaggerated.
> 
> The film is two and a half hours long, but feels like three. We actually thought it was three as we came blinking out of the cinema rubbing our numb arses. It has the plot of three movies squeezed into one film, and for a large part of it I was confused as to what exactly was going on, and where the story was going (not in a 'Oooh, what a nice surprise!' way, but in a 'What a jumbled mess!' way.
> 
> ...



I saw this tonight. Earlier, I'd said that my kids had liked it, so what does Wookey know? What I didn't know, was that my kids are actually media droids who like what they're told to like. I guess they're allowed, what with being kids and all.

I'd agree with most of wookey's analysis. Ledger was passable, but how hard is it to play a crazy guy? All you have to do is make weird faces and have a funny walk. You've got makeup on, so it's not like we're able to detect subtleties of emotion. I think of earlier baddies, movie and tv: Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, Jack Nicholson. All were convincing crazies, and so is Ledger.

Where did they get the chick? The city's greatest heroes are duelling over this girl? Who did the casting?

If you're going to do an action movie, at least make it so we can see the action. There is too much fast, cut-away editing, things become confusing, unless it's a high speed drive under the tracks of the L train, which bale does in at least three vehicles that I can immediately recall. In and out of the picket-cars. There's at least one good sequence, though, where the semi does a nose stand.

And all the comic book philosophising. By the end, when Gordon is delivering his batman soliloquy, I wanted to be able to type 'STFU', somewhere, in big letters with an exclamation mark.

I think part of it is, I'm tired of comic books made into movies.  I'm tired of two dimensional characters and a plot that goes like this: Batman fights the Joker. Even something like the Bourne movies give us lots of action, but make us at least care a little about the characters.

I liked the last batman better. Seemed there was more characterization, as I recall, but I can't really recall, because all of these movies are ultimately forgettable.

When you get right down to it, I think I'd disagree with wookey on one point: I _would_ call this movie a stinker.

The popcorn was good, though. Properly buttered, not too much or too little, layered.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 1, 2008)

i think you and wookey are in a very small minority , even el jeffe enjoyed it , still its nice to be different innit


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

ruffneck23 said:


> i think you and wookey are in a very small minority , even el jeffe enjoyed it , still its nice to be different innit



There were parts where I was thinking:'I wonder if I could get away with taking a little nap?'


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 1, 2008)

lol


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Ledger was passable, but how hard is it to play a crazy guy?


 A lot harder than you'd think IMO. Certainly to do it convincingly and to give a solid and _serious_ performance, rather than somone smiling like a chimp and being an fool for the sake of it.

Ledger's performance was superb.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Playing a crazy person is licence to, as they say, 'chew the scenery'.


----------



## Santino (Sep 1, 2008)

I'm sure that Jim Carrey would have played it just as well. Or Robin Williams. Or why not Lenny Henry, he's a joker all right!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I'm sure that Jim Carrey would have played it just as well. Or Robin Williams. Or why not Lenny Henry, he's a joker all right!



Not crazy/funny. Crazy/crazy.

Think Jack Nicholson.


----------



## Santino (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not crazy/funny. Crazy/crazy.
> 
> Think Jack Nicholson.


No contest, in my opinion. Nicholson is just arsing around, Ledger's Joker is a proper mentalist, if I may use a technical term.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Not crazy/funny. Crazy/crazy.
> 
> Think Jack Nicholson.


 With all due respect, Ledger acted Nicholson off the (respective) screen. Everyone held up Nicholson's Joker as 'the' Joker, but he was just playing Jack - Ledger (and the Nolans, of course) created a much more interesting character and played it with more subtlety, if that's possible with such a character.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Lord Camomile said:


> With all due respect, Ledger acted Nicholson off the (respective) screen. Everyone held up Nicholson's Joker as 'the' Joker, but he was just playing Jack - Ledger (and the Nolans, of course) created a much more interesting character and played it with more subtlety, if that's possible with such a character.



I wasn't comparing performances. I was responding to the comment that Jim Carrey could do the role.

I was pointing out that it's not a comic role.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I wasn't comparing performances. I was responding to the comment that Jim Carrey could do the role.
> 
> I was pointing out that it's not a comic role.


 Fair enough (besides, Carrey is already the Riddler  ), though I'd still argue Nicholson was playing it more for laughs than Ledger; certainly more 'fun'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Lord Camomile said:


> Fair enough (besides, Carrey is already the Riddler  ), though I'd still argue Nicholson was playing it more for laughs than Ledger; certainly more 'fun'.



As I recall, Nicholson plays it possibly a little closer to what the character was originally intended to be, which is imo, a psychotic clown. And even a psychotic clown can get off a few good lines that might get a laugh.

The only thing clownish about Ledger's rendition, is the makeup, barely.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 1, 2008)

I thought it was alright.  It didn't live up to the hype, but to be fair, it'd have to provide a cure for fucking cancer to do that.  The plot was somewhat confused and all that "terrorist" shit grated on my last nerve, but it was still an enjoyable (if flawed) superhero film with a strong performance from Ledger.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

Another thing: enough with the 911 allusions already!


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As I recall, Nicholson plays it possibly a little closer to what the character was originally intended to be, which is imo, a psychotic clown. And even a psychotic clown can get off a few good lines that might get a laugh.
> 
> The only thing clownish about Ledger's rendition, is the makeup, barely.


Nicholson's Joker is the clown price of crime of the old TV series, Ledger's Joker is the irredeemable psychopath of the darker, late 80s and early 90s comics.

It's not really fair to compare the two, because they're not even really playing the same character.  That said, I thought that pencil bit was hillarious.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The only thing clownish about Ledger's rendition, is the makeup, barely.


 He might have not had any clownish attire on him at the time, but when he was posing as a hospital nurse I thought he was funny as fuck.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 1, 2008)

Personally I think that if you combined both characters, you'd have something akin to the comics.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 1, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> The final 1/4 of The Crow was an incredible mess.
> 
> if you want proper shite - SPAWN.



Yeah, Spawn is utter utter utter crap.  Definitely in my top 5 worst films ever.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 1, 2008)

In Bloom said:


> That said, I thought that pencil bit was hillarious.



I'd agree there.

That's what I'm talking about....


----------



## Structaural (Nov 24, 2008)

Well I never. Wookey was right...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 24, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Well I never. Wookey was right...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 24, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Well I never. Wookey was right...



LOL! The poll proved otherwise.


----------



## Structaural (Nov 25, 2008)

Not to me. Proved what?

Okay, so I'll change my opinion based on the general consensus, homogeny is good.   

Hey... I laughed, four times.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 25, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Not to me. Proved what?
> 
> Okay, so I'll change my opinion based on the general consensus, homogeny is good.
> 
> Hey... I laughed, four times.



Yes. We are always right.


----------



## Structaural (Nov 25, 2008)

okay

will it help if I say I found it entertaining, but rubbish?


----------



## kained&able (Nov 25, 2008)

I was well impressed with this film. Up there with dare dveil(directors cut) as my favorite super hero(or geek with gadgets in this case) film ever.

Heath ledger didn't disserpoint dispite being hyped massively(i was expecting to be disserpointed).

I thought it was a great film. bring on two face!


dave


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 25, 2008)

kained&able said:


> I thought it was a great film. bring on two face!





Spoiler: The Dark Knight



He, er, died at the end. Remember?


----------



## kained&able (Nov 25, 2008)

eh???



Spoiler: yousure



I don't remember that! you sure hes dead and not just nearly dead and disfigured


 
dave


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 25, 2008)

kained&able said:


> eh???
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler: yup, I'm sure



Quoth Aaron Eckhart himself: "I mean, there's gonna be many more [films]. You're talking to a person who knows nothing about it or has no power whatsoever, but I do think Chris and his brother have more to say. I mean, people love the movie. Um, Harvey, I'm sure, is dead. Unfortunately, we are not going to see The Joker again." Plus, we, um, saw his funeral at the very end of the film, while Gary Oldman's speechifying.


----------



## kained&able (Nov 25, 2008)

Oh yeah i remmember now. I don't buy it though.


dave


----------



## bluestreak (Nov 25, 2008)

Structaural said:


> Well I never. Wookey was right...


 
No he wasn't.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 25, 2008)

We saw the funeral but they've already lied to the public about him being guilty of the murders to preserve his image, locking him away in a mental asylum is no more of a leap.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 25, 2008)

Bob_the_lost said:


> We saw the funeral but they've already lied to the public about him being guilty of the murders to preserve his image, locking him away in a mental asylum is no more of a leap.


IIRC Eckhart's said he hates that idea in another interview. Will try to dig it out...


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 25, 2008)

Watched it again last night in High Def....


fucking awesome


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 25, 2008)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Watched it again last night in High Def....
> 
> 
> fucking awesome


I will see you that and raise you: watched it again last night at the IMAX.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 25, 2008)

I just hope they can get Nolan back on board for the third.

Imagine if they get someone shitty and it's like X Men 3.


----------



## Structaural (Nov 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> No he wasn't.



I think I'm just getting old and grumpy, I would have loved it ten years ago, thought the effects were excellent and Heath's Joker was well done (but not as good as I was expecting). But I just found it a bit stupid, cheesy and Waspy. I didn't like Batman Begins either but this was better. Just... disappointing.

But then the Dark Knight (and the Killing Joke) is the only Batman comic I really liked and this wasn't much like that, I never cared much for DC when I was a comics nutter. Don't like Bale much either, does he need to be in so many films? and he had a stupid voice as Batman. I thought Oldman was good though - a bit of humanity in the film. 

Thought the bit on the ships was ridiculous, they should have taken that out and shortened the film a bit. Not enough acting or decent characterisation (Gyllenhaal phoned her part in, I swear she forgot her line at one point). Too many set pieces and the best one was in the trailer so I'd already seen it (the truck flip). I watched it on 720p on a 42" plasma with really loud surround and my gf fell asleep twice . 
Sound and fury signifying nothing. What was the message, that we need hidden and shady people doing dodgy shit that they think's right for our own good? And didn't Batman ever do a first aid course? jeez let half the man's face burn off...but Dent gave me my first big laugh when he shot the driver.

If I had 3 hours to waste again, I'd watch Once upon a time in America again. *moan, moan*


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 25, 2008)

elevendayempire said:


> I will see you that and raise you: watched it again last night at the IMAX.





re raise you watched the Imax version on my TV with beer and popcorn


----------



## narcodollars (Nov 26, 2008)

I've seen this one, at least a dozen times. 

I worked in a movie theatre on the Sunset Strip this summer. The turnout of moviegoers was always strongest at midnight.

(As far as Hollywood is concerned, the place is actually a ghetto, I catch the bus up there.)


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 26, 2008)

B0B2oo9 said:


> re raise you watched the Imax version on my TV with beer and popcorn


No, see, that doesn't work because I saw it on a screen _the size of a house._


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 26, 2008)

yeah but i could pause it for a piss and smoke a fatty boom batty


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 25, 2009)

I watched this on Friday night. I thought it was pretty good apart from Batman's voice which made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion. Was it meant to be menacing?


----------



## pk (Jan 25, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> I watched this on Friday night. I thought it was pretty good apart from Batman's voice which made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion. Was it meant to be menacing?



Yeah, what the fuck was that about?

Christian Bale was uncharacteristically weak in that role, Ledger blew him off the screen.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 25, 2009)

Ledger was the highlight, but the rest of the acting and story twists were really well done too. I did pause it a few times to have a break though - I can imagine being forced to sit through it for 2.5 hours in a cinema might be grating.


----------



## pk (Jan 25, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> the acting and story twists were really well done too...



I can't agree. It looked to me to be over-produced and over-shot, it lacked passion and it lacked decisive direction.

I enjoyed it for what it was - the same way I enjoyed Alien vs Predator, a gimmicky film not to be taken too seriously.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 25, 2009)

I must admit I rewound a few bits to make sure I understood some subtle bits of the dialogue which sometimes got hidden by the booming soundtrack.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 25, 2009)

pk said:


> I can't agree. It looked to me to be over-produced and over-shot, it lacked passion and it lacked decisive direction.
> 
> I enjoyed it for what it was - the same way I enjoyed Alien vs Predator, a gimmicky film not to be taken too seriously.



Weird; I felt that, just like Batman Begins, it was, as these things go, exceptionally high-quality.


----------



## Celt (Mar 9, 2009)

I watched this tonight and thought it was great,

Loved Heath Ledgers Joker


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

CharlieAddict said:


> it's officially the best film ever on IMDB after 135,443 votes.
> Rotten Tomatoes has given it 95%.
> 
> gee...some people just love a good whinge on u75.



Indeed.  I watched it last summer, came out going that was very good, but did feel a little hollow as it had all been so much to cope with, then watched it again in August with a mate who isn't easily pleased by most Hollywood films, and he pointed out that it was quite Shakespearean and really a cut above most, and then I watched it again the other day just to double check, and it really is very very good.  And ledger's acting was good, but it was only good cos the script is fucking fantastic.  if he'd been given a bunch of one liners like Jack Nicholson had it wouldn't have been much cop.  

I mean, you get people like Mamet and so on who make twisty films.  This has that. You get the Godfather films with their epic scope.  This has that.  You get the good action films.  It has that too.  And then you get the more arthousey films of this world, the Guardian reading films, like Hana Bi, films with moral complexity and no easy answers. Again, it had that too.

Off hand, I can't think of a more complete film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

pk said:


> I enjoyed it for what it was - the same way I enjoyed Alien vs Predator, a gimmicky film not to be taken too seriously.



When I reread stuff like this I do wonder if people on here actually know what good writing and stuff is and what isn't.  or if they just write random things on a view generator and post them


----------



## Superdupastupor (Dec 14, 2009)

the pre-title sequence is pretty much the coolest intro to a film that I can think of.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Indeed.  The film is good on so many levels.  Anything which you watch again a year later and like it even more than the first time in the cinema, has to be good.

A gimmicky film on a par with Aliens V Predator indeed!  And I suppose Hamlet is a throwaway piece of airport literature about on a par with Mary Poppins.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> And I suppose Hamlet is a throwaway piece of airport literature about on a par with Mary Poppins.



If only. If ever there was a thing that needs more dancing penguins, it's Hamlet.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)




----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

I would be prepared to watch this film again (to spot the Shakespearean undercurrent!) but re-reading my review, it still feels accurate.

Remember, I am a fan of all Batman media, I love Heath Ledger and Bale, I was looking forward to seeing the film, I was at the press premiere surrounded by Batgeeks and hardcore comicheads, and it was on Imax - all the ingredients were there to make me love it.

But still I did not.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> Remember, I am a fan of all Batman media, I love Heath Ledger and Bale, I was looking forward to seeing the film, I was at the press premiere, and it was on Imax - all the ingredients were there to make me love it.
> 
> But still I did not.


 But did you have joy in your heart?


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> But did you have joy in your heart?



Yes! And a hole in my bucket!! And still I was not touched.

I think it all boils down to three words:

I expected better.

Really, if you loved the film, that's great! And I love your low expectations too.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 14, 2009)

Actually, I had pretty high expectations for this one (although possibly without knowing _what_ to expect, if that makes sense), and was all ready to be disappointed, but came out of the cinema saying pretty much "I can't believe that lived up to the hype".

I've watched it a few more times since and without the hoopla it's certainly not a perfect film, but I still think it's very, very impressive and a damn good film.


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Actually, I had pretty high expectations for this one (although possibly without knowing _what_ to expect, if that makes ense), and was all ready to be disappointed, but came out of the cinema saying pretty much "I can't believe that lived up to the hype".
> 
> I've watched it a few more times since and without the hoopla it's certainly not a perfect film, but I still think it's very, very impressive and a damn good film.



You can't argue against that!! Glad you loved it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> I would be prepared to watch this film again (to spot the Shakespearean undercurrent!) but re-reading my review, it still feels accurate.
> 
> Remember, I am a fan of all Batman media, I love Heath Ledger and Bale, I was looking forward to seeing the film, I was at the press premiere surrounded by Batgeeks and hardcore comicheads, and it was on Imax - all the ingredients were there to make me love it.
> 
> But still I did not.



I think it's a film that's more enjoyable to watch at home.  So much happens in it, it's so well crafted, that it's hard to take it all in at the cinema.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

It is a defense of fascism and a surreptitious attack on liberalism



*runs away*


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think it's a film that's more enjoyable to watch at home.  So much happens in it, it's so well crafted, that it's hard to take it all in at the cinema.



It was on an Imax too, and I find that unless you are near the back they can be quite hard to watch - and I was in the middle.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> Really, if you loved the film, that's great! And I love your low expectations too.



patronising nonsense. Low expectations are the sort of people who see any old shit with no story or plot and say 'but it was fun'.

I've said for years and years but why can't they make an action film but also make it like a proper film with a plot which you can compare to anything rather than just the standards of action films.  People laughed at me.  When i saw this, it's like finally they've done it.  Batman Begins too, but the slightly clunky script just edges BB behind this.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think it's a film that's more enjoyable to watch at home.  So much happens in it, it's so well crafted, that it's hard to take it all in at the cinema.


 Really? Given the cinematography I'd say it's cinema all the way, and IMAX if you can.

You certainly get a different experience watching it on TV (says the bloke who is still yet to actually do so ) but I really don't think you could say it's more enjoyable.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> It is a defense of fascism and a surreptitious attack on liberalism
> 
> *runs away*


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 14, 2009)

You know, this was ok. But best film ever? Heh.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Really? Given the cinematography I'd say it's cinema all the way, and IMAX if you can.
> 
> You certainly get a different experience watching it on TV (says the bloke who is still yet to actually do so ) but I really don't think you could say it's more enjoyable.



Yeah.  I dunno why.  Some of my favourite big movies, I've found that in the cinema, it's like I'm being bombarded.  I had that reaction to The Two Towers to start with, and then it grew on me when I watched it again on the DVD.

On the other hand, Star Trek was awesome in the cinema.

Thing about The Dark Knight is that it isn't really an action film, there are chases but they aren't the main thing, it's more comparable with something a bit above that.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

stupid dogbot said:


> You know, this was ok. But best film ever? Heh.



I'm not saying it's the best film ever, I just can't think of many other things which blend so many different things together.  Like having twists, but them actually being there as part of the story rather than the film just building to the twist, like having action, but the action is driving the other elements of the story.  And not being a typical hollywood plastic film in a lot of ways.  And so on.


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Thing about The Dark Knight is that it isn't really an action film, there are chases but they aren't the main thing, it's more comparable with something a bit above that.



Like Shakespeare!


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

I went to the toilet twice too, that didn't help.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> Like Shakespeare!



That was actually what my mate said, not me. But it's definitely got as much substance as a lot of supposedly 'high brow' films.


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> That was actually what my mate said, not me. But it's definitely got as much substance as a lot of supposedly 'high brow' films.



What do you mean by substance?

And what do you mean by 'high-brow'? Giz an example.


----------



## soluble duck (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think it's a film that's more enjoyable to watch at home.  So much happens in it, it's so well crafted, that it's hard to take it all in at the cinema.



I think there is some truth in this. I saw it in the cinema last year, and although I enjoyed it, I felt a bit tired at the end, and not in a very 'Wow, what a great film' mood.

But then I watched it in HD on the telly the other day and thought it was a lot better. Particularly because I didn't have to focus so much on the plot which is a bit too drawn out for me, as I don't like comics beyond the art.

The acting is great, particularly Ledger and Bale. I know everyone made a big deal over Ledger's performance but it really is great. I also like the end part of the film where Two Face is introduced as the new baddie.

It is overrated (it is not the best film ever made, not even the best film of last year), but is an entirely good watch and a few great performances


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

soluble duck said:


> It is overrated (it is not the best film ever made, not even the best film of last year), but is an entirely good watch and a few great performances



I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> What do you mean by substance?
> 
> And what do you mean by 'high-brow'? Giz an example.



Oh, i don't know, high brow is the wrong word.  What I mean is that it's a good film, and doesn't need to be qualified by saying 'it's a good action film'.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> What do you mean by substance?
> 
> And what do you mean by 'high-brow'? Giz an example.



Apocalypse Now, Godfather, etc.

I would ascertain that it's as good as or better than those films.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I'm not saying it's the best film ever, I just can't think of many other things which blend so many different things together.  Like having twists, but them actually being there as part of the story rather than the film just building to the twist, like having action, but the action is driving the other elements of the story.  And not being a typical hollywood plastic film in a lot of ways.  And so on.



Sorry, wasn't aimed at you mate - I meant where someone had said it's now rated best film ever on IMDB or whatever.

I don't mean to suggest you're wrong, at all. Personally, I enjoyed it, but only as a couple of hours of entertainment, as opposed to great art.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

stupid dogbot said:


> Sorry, wasn't aimed at you mate - I meant where someone had said it's now rated best film ever on IMDB or whatever.
> 
> I don't mean to suggest you're wrong, at all. Personally, I enjoyed it, but only as a couple of hours of entertainment, as opposed to great art.



Fair play.  I reckon it comes pretty close to blurring the line though


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Apocalypse Now, Godfather, etc.
> 
> I would ascertain that it's as good as or better than those films.



Wow.

I see what you mean that you would compare it to other 'great' films, rather than judge it purely as an action movie.

I honestly think that's great that you got that out of it. I thought it had some good elements, and many people loved it. It just didn't 'work' on me I don't think, perhaps because it was clearly trying to be a multi-dimensional film - but it didn't have high enough aims, imo.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

I honestly think it's got so much to it that you need to watch it 2-3 times...


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 14, 2009)

Lord Camomile - if you do watch it at home try and do so on a Bluray with a 1080p telly! You get full screen goodness for the big actions scenes and it looks absolutley amazing.

I'm with udw on this - I've watched it several times at home, and it's far easier to appreciate the character performances than on a big screen, which for me tended toward the 'woah!' approach. 

Plus Ledger's monologues are fucking brilliant - my favourite is his speech to Harvey Dent in the hospital, but all of them are great. 

Not the best film ever, no, but I think udw's comparisons with films like Apocalypse now is valid, and that for me it deserves the title 'film' rather than 'movie'.


----------



## Wookey (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I honestly think it's got so much to it that you need to watch it 2-3 times...



Some would argue you only have to watch the best films once to understand they are great. If someone said to me: 'It's a great novel, but you have to read it three times before you appreciate how great it is,' then I think I would consider that author to have failed in their primary task of communication, somewhat.

Three times 2.5 hours is 7.5 hours! I could write my own comic book in that time!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Yeah, I remember you saying the same thing about Batman Begins, and I agreed, although I do wish that Jonathan Nolan had done the script for that too, as while there are some good lines, the script for the Dark Knight is definitely better


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> Some would argue you only have to watch the best films once to understand they are great. If someone said to me: 'It's a great novel, but you have to read it three times before you appreciate how great it is,' then I think I would consider that author to have failed in their primary task of communication, somewhat.
> 
> Three times 2.5 hours is 7.5 hours! I could write my own comic book in that time!



Hmm.

I think books are wholly different from films.  Many films which seem totally amazing the first time you see them, kind of lose their appeal when you watch them again. I would compare films more with music, and on your argument, we'd be chucking most of Sonic Youth's great albums out of the window just for starters.

With books you sit and take it all in at your own pace.  Some books have got lots to take in, but it doesn't matter as you turn the page when you're ready.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Wookey said:


> Some would argue you only have to watch the best films once to understand they are great. If someone said to me: 'It's a great novel, but you have to read it three times before you appreciate how great it is,' then I think I would consider that author to have failed in their primary task of communication, somewhat.
> 
> Three times 2.5 hours is 7.5 hours! I could write my own comic book in that time!



Not to mention the Wire.  If I had taken your approach I never would have bothered with it, it took me watching the first 3-4 episodes about 4 times before I finally 'got' it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

And there are writers who you need to double or triple take their books.  Like Atonement.  If I'd just picked it up and tried reading it I'd have dismissed it as it was hard to start with, it took about 3 goes of the first 30 pages for me...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 14, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Apocalypse Now, Godfather, etc.
> 
> I would ascertain that it's as good as or better than those films.



Yep, deffo as good as Apocalypse Now, never been a fan of the Godfather though...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Yeah, between you and me, I found Godfather to be quite slow.  But I can see the quality in it.  I actually think that these Batman films achieve the same epic scope, but much more taut and focussed.

I was just reading through this thread and people's reactions are so bizarre.  You'd think it was like X men 3 or Fantastic Four or something from how they're all bitching on.  And then you get Johnny who defends any old piece of shit cheese, slagging it off and saying it's bog standard cheese.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

While 'Shakespearean' is a slight exaggeration, I still reckon that there is something very play-like about it.  I can't believe someone said the script was bad.  How many Hollywood films have they actually seen?  The script was top notch. Very odd.  the action scenes are merely moving the story along, the story is about the characters, and one character's fall from grace.  That is fundamentally theatrical/classical.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

TwoFaces fall from grace was presented as a consequence of his pussy liberalism. Bale ground out his lines like a man chewing broken glass, and the Joker's morl quandaries were very GCSE.

That said, I watched it twice. And that bit where Ledge impales a gangster via a pencil through the eye got re-wound and watched at least five times


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

The words Ledger gets are very theatrical.  Jack Nicholson's Joker was much more standard Hollywood, endless cheesy oneliners.  

If you were one of the city's most famous playboys, and you went round dressed up as a Bat, would you speak in your normal voice?  I doubt I would.  People seem to think that was him trying to be scary, and think they've missed the point somewhat.


----------



## kained&able (Dec 14, 2009)

It's the best superhero(even though batman isn't a super hero) film by a long long way.

It is easily in the best action films of all time only behind the bourne films & possibly only ultimatum at that.

Oh and all the star wars films obviously but that goes without saying as they are the best films in every category.

Its fucking superb.


dave


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

And I don't elevate particular types of films as 'only' being worthy of 'best film ever' status.  I only said Apocalypse Now and godfather cos they're the standard ones that get cited.  I would include, say, Groundhog Day and Hana Bi in those.  But how on earth is one meant to say that Groundhog Day is better than Hana Bi, or vice versa? One can't.  So, if a superhero/comic book film is done this well, there's no reason it can't be considered alongside (albeit differently) any other film which one considers best film ever.

If one applied this to music, one wouldn't consider, say, Madonna or Bob Marley as great artists.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

And it's far more sophisticated than Bourne


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 14, 2009)

The Bourne films are all very tight, fast paced thrillers tho, and it's only when you take the whole arc of the story into account can you look at the overriding themes: men can only find their identity with the support of women; governments create weapons they can't control if they misfire.


----------



## Santino (Dec 14, 2009)

I found the third Bourne film entirely uninvolving.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The Bourne films are all very tight, fast paced thrillers tho, and it's only when you take the whole arc of the story into account can you look at the overriding themes: men can only find their identity with the support of women; governments create weapons they can't control if they misfire.



They are ace, but merely 'very good movies' rather than that blurring of the line...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

Santino said:


> I found the third Bourne film entirely uninvolving.



I liked the second one best cos of the beginning in Goa.  Someone I taught with in China said that it was that scene that, in part, persuaded them to sell their house and car, pack in their long term jobs and come and teach English in China.  They ended up in a city of 8 million 

I know what they meant though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The Bourne films are all very tight, fast paced thrillers tho, and it's only when you take the whole arc of the story into account can you look at the overriding themes: men can only find their identity with the support of women; governments create weapons they can't control if they misfire.



It is interesting to look at the books here as well as the films. 

The book has a state assasin gone bad as well, but his badness is in relation to having half his skull blown off and slowly re-discovering his purpose.

In many ways the Bourne films ring truer for me than even new Bond. The assassin is no wisecracking superhero. He is a total fuckup emotionally and has a very narrow and lethal skillset. 

There is no 'smoke me a kipper I'll be home for breakfast' style grandiose bastardry, simply a well trained man with an agenda. The faceless, compassionless nightmare of an opponent just working over those that stand in his way. It feels real. The idea of the ruthless murderer who stops off at the sweetshop to get his kids some treats doesn't ring true when you are thinking of black/grey ops. Forget all that banality of evil shit, Bourne is a convincing assassin


----------



## Santino (Dec 14, 2009)

I hated the way his girlfriend died pointlessly in the second film. It makes the whole first film sort of hollow.


----------



## kained&able (Dec 14, 2009)

I refuse to talk about the bourne books and the films at the same time, they have nothing to do with each other. I love em both though.

I'm fairly sure the bourne films kinda redfeined action films.(along with 24) the camera angles, the flaws of the lead character and the less cheesy duologue were all as a result of the bourne films. Without bourne i don't think there would have been things like the last bond, the two new batmans or watchmen etc.

I see why they killed her though they had to have him coming back to civilisation and gunning for revenge and about the only way to do it was by kill Marie. It was also ridiculously unexpected as i expected her to survive to the end, which is always nice.


dave


----------



## Gromit (Dec 14, 2009)

Santino said:


> I hated the way his girlfriend died pointlessly in the second film. It makes the whole first film sort of hollow.


 
Spoiler code?

I was kinda glad though tbh.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 14, 2009)

Yeah, but it sets up the rest of the story. If she wasn't shot by accident Bourne wouldn't have gone all out to wreak his revenge, as he promised to do so, on those who created Treadstone (and indeed, the only reason that happened was because of a side deal Vaughan did with the Russian by way of setting up a retirement fund)

Echoing what dotty said too, Bourne reminds me a great deal of Mitch Leary from In The Line Of Fire - a completely broken man who has been abandoned like a wind-up toy, who develops the capacity to wind himself.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

Santino said:


> I hated the way his girlfriend died pointlessly in the second film. It makes the whole first film sort of hollow.



You can see why they did it but yeah, that was annoying. They should have just left out the happy ending from the first one IMO.


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 14, 2009)

Santino said:


> I hated the way his girlfriend died pointlessly in the second film. It makes the whole first film sort of hollow.


Thought that was brilliant - utterly unexpected, and it changes the whole tone of the first film in retrospect. When you watch the first one in isolation, that bit where she wrestles with whether or not to help him is a standard bit of Hollywood fayre; watched with the foreknowledge of the second film, it becomes heart-wrenching; the moment this innocent girl dooms herself, by trying to do the right thing. And, it makes clear, if you as a civilian get involved in all this CIA black-ops shit, _you will die_. Hollywood rules don't apply.


----------



## kained&able (Dec 14, 2009)

I've always presumed that the first was done as complete stand alone originally to see if the concept would work and once it made money 2/3(and indeed allegedly 4, soon) were written and made and further expanded upon.


dave


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

I didn't think they had much of a story arc like the batman films have though, they're really exciting to watch and that, but ultimately it's just someone running along, beating people up and dodging getting caught.


----------



## kained&able (Dec 14, 2009)

Watch them again if you think that! Your very wrong.

There is a lot happening, also a lot that is kinda left to the viewers imagination(like that nickki girl for example, there is definitely a back story between bourne and her but at least at the moment we are all guessing((dont think she was in the book either so no clues there.)



dave


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 14, 2009)

> that bit where she wrestles with whether or not to help him is a standard bit of Hollywood fayre;



I don't even see her wrestling that much - first off it's the offer of the $20K that she gives all of 30 seconds thought to, then after the scene in Paris and his asking her to find the hotel records she is clearly getting off on the adrenalin (something that would be in character with her background of rootlessness)...altho now I realise I'm getting _way_ to far into this...

The Batman films don't have a story arc, aside from Bruce and whatsherface.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 14, 2009)

kained&able said:


> Watch them again if you think that! Your very wrong.
> 
> There is a lot happening, also a lot that is kinda left to the viewers imagination(like that nickki girl for example, there is definitely a back story between bourne and her but at least at the moment we are all guessing((dont think she was in the book either so no clues there.)
> 
> dave



I really like them, the individual films just don't stick in my head at all..


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2009)

I've been of work sick today and have watched this again I have also just watched the watchmen film and while the Dark Knight is a pretty good action film I though Watchmen was vastly superior.

The word watch appears far too much in that sentence!


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 16, 2009)

emanymton said:


> I've been of work sick today and have watched this again I have also just watched the watchmen film and while the Dark Knight is a pretty good action film I though Watchmen was vastly superior.
> 
> The word watch appears far too much in that sentence!



Director's Cut or cinema release version of Watchmen?

Watchmen is a very different beastie IMV - it's a poltical thriller with people with superpowers, rather than a straight up 'hero' movie. It's a lot more 'adult' in the way it works, but many level the possibly justified criticism that it sticks _too_ slavishly to the comic (I refuse to use the term 'graphic novel')...personally I think that's a plus and that those selfsame people would have bitched had it _not_ been frame-perfect but y'know...anyway, different film styles completely. Less people I know were baffled by TDK than Watchmen  when they came out of the cinema


----------



## scifisam (Dec 16, 2009)

stupid dogbot said:


> Sorry, wasn't aimed at you mate - I meant where someone had said it's now rated best film ever on IMDB or whatever.
> 
> I don't mean to suggest you're wrong, at all. Personally, I enjoyed it, but only as a couple of hours of entertainment, as opposed to great art.



That wasn't a rating compiled on people saying what they thought the best film ever was - it was a rating based on what percentage of people gave the film a really high star rating. So it was the film that the largest number of people thought was excellent, rather than the film that was voted best film ever. 

That's five 'films' in one paragraph.  

I've only seen the first Bourne film - I just couldn't get into it, though I'm willing to try again. Don't need to see the second one now, of course - thanks Santino.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2009)

scifisam said:


> I've only seen the first Bourne film - I just couldn't get into it, though I'm willing to try again. Don't need to see the second one now, of course - thanks Santino.


I've done you a favour.

I can remember almost nothing about the rest of the film, incidentally. That's how exciting it was.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 16, 2009)

scifisam said:


> That wasn't a rating compiled on people saying what they thought the best film ever was - it was a rating based on what percentage of people gave the film a really high star rating. So it was the film that the largest number of people thought was excellent, rather than the film that was voted best film ever.



Yeah, I realise how IMDB ratings work. I also realise the _actual_ value of user ratings. 

I mean, look how many people on there gave _I Am Legend_ 10...


----------



## emanymton (Dec 16, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Director's Cut or cinema release version of Watchmen?
> 
> Watchmen is a very different beastie IMV - it's a poltical thriller with people with superpowers, rather than a straight up 'hero' movie. It's a lot more 'adult' in the way it works, but many level the possibly justified criticism that it sticks _too_ slavishly to the comic (I refuse to use the term 'graphic novel')...personally I think that's a plus and that those selfsame people would have bitched had it _not_ been frame-perfect but y'know...anyway, different film styles completely. Less people I know were baffled by TDK than Watchmen  when they came out of the cinema



I've no idea which version, I just downloaded the first one i found 

I agree it is much more serious and adult film, it certainly wasn't what I expected and I didn't find it baffling at all personally but I did require me to pay attention.


----------

