GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
In The Theaters
I just saw it and boy does it...
318

The Dark Knight Discussion WITH SPOILERS!!!!
Topic by: hamano
Posted: July 22, 2008 - 5:49 AM PDT
Last Reply: August 27, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT

author topic: The Dark Knight Discussion WITH SPOILERS!!!!
hamano
post #1  on July 22, 2008 - 5:49 AM PDT  
OK, Doozer, go to town.

> On July 19, 2008 - 10:54 AM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Dark Knight is the kind of movie that generates rather unrealistic expectations. But I felt it really delivered. Altered voice? Yes, it's silly, but doesn't happen much.
>
> Mostly the film has two things that elevate it to exceptional:
>
> 1. The great supporting work of Oldman, Caine, and Freeman
>
> 2. Heath Ledger's Joker
>
> The art direction deserves mention also.
>
> Eckhart is also quite good as Harvey Dent, but cannot compare to the dynamic persona of the Joker. Ledger did something I would not have thought possible. He created a truly scary super-villain, and usually without any kind of weapon. His character made me think anything might happen in this movie. Anything.
>
> If I felt the need to complain, I'd say it's a tad too long and the last 20 minutes feel like a rush job. A stronger finish would have pushed The Dark Knight into the territory of all-time favorite.
>
> I mean, good lord, Eric Roberts gives a solid performance. What more proof do you need that this is remarkable film?
> ---------------------------------

hamano
post #2  on July 22, 2008 - 5:52 AM PDT  
> 1. The great supporting work of Oldman, Caine, and Freeman

Although that's like stacking the decks... these guys didn't transcend any of their previous work here... they could phone it in. They were fun to watch but they weren't "stretching" in any way...
hamano
post #3  on July 22, 2008 - 6:24 AM PDT  
I enjoyed the film (grim though as it was) but I think killing off Rachel (and creating Two Face) so early was a big problem. It felt like they stuck half a sequel to the end of the film after that... and the character of Two Face felt underused and wasted.

Killing off the female lead is a bold move but I didn't think it worked here. The scene worked well but the ferry standoff at the end, another of the Joker's moral experiments, couldn't match or surpass it, which made the rest of the film seem like a long downhill trudge.

I think in a more "normal" film, the director would have had the ferry standoff first, THEN he would have ratcheted the moral stakes to PERSONAL levels at the climax, and I think it might have worked better. The momentum was lost after Rachel died, and the confusing cell phone sonar thing didn't help.
doozer
post #4  on July 22, 2008 - 6:25 AM PDT  
I'm glad they killed Rachel off honestly. She was written for the movie, and butchered by Katie Holmes so I always found her to be pointless.
hamano
post #5  on July 22, 2008 - 9:10 AM PDT  
I was happy to see her go, too. I think they had to add her because the danger of a superhero comics adaptation, especially DC comics, ESPECIALLY Batman, is that the film will fall victim to its own "gay subtext" and it will become a gay angstfest or a gay campfest or both. That worked in favor of the TV show at the expense of any exploration of the "dark side" of any of the characters or mythos. The Batman franchise hasn't had any interesting female players since the TV show with the possible exception of the WB cartoons. In this film, Ramirez, the female cop who sells out Rachel, WAS a bit interesting but her parts were very brief and superficial. Rachel is just too uninteresting to possibly grab the devotion of Gotham's two most eligible bachelors. What's left after that? The Russian ballerinas? They were a joke... real ballet dancers don't have boobs like pole dancers.

I liked the moral tone of the film, where the "hero" eventually becomes the "monster"... reflecting the changes in what America stands for post-9/11. But at the end it was not clear who we were supposed to cheer for. And if the point of the film was "there's really no one to cheer for, we're all bad" then what's the point of a superhero film? To depress people?
doozer
post #6  on July 22, 2008 - 11:50 AM PDT  
Well the Batman premise is depressing in and of itself if you think about it. Batman was born of Bruce Wayne's vengeance and guilt over the death of his parents.
hamano
post #7  on July 23, 2008 - 5:52 AM PDT  
> On July 22, 2008 - 11:50 AM PDT doozer wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Well the Batman premise is depressing in and of itself if you think about it. Batman was born of Bruce Wayne's vengeance and guilt over the death of his parents.
> ---------------------------------

Like losing your entire home planet with everyone on it including your family isn't? (Superman) I don't think anyone really concentrated so much on Batman's dark side until about the late '70s or '80s. The backstory was always there to explain Batman's motives, but they didn't really get into the twisted psychology of it. But previously (except maybe in some of the comics) they never pushed a whole movie to the point where Batman was almost beyond redemption by the end.

Either way, it's interesting that the film pretty much entirely abandoned the "purpose" of the comics superhero. Usually the superhero, in spite of any psychic scars he may bear in addition to his "powers" is usually there to inspire ordinary mortals and to set an example. In Dark Knight none of the good guys are sure what kind of example they should set, and they eventually set up a dead guy who'd turned bad to be the example for the masses. The title character has been reduced to beating up prisoners running for his life. It's depressing but it probably accurately reflects how many audience members feel about the state of America. Does the word "hero" mean anything anymore? Are Americans heroic for liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam?
doozer
post #8  on July 23, 2008 - 2:26 PM PDT  
> On July 23, 2008 - 5:52 AM PDT hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On July 22, 2008 - 11:50 AM PDT doozer wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > Well the Batman premise is depressing in and of itself if you think about it. Batman was born of Bruce Wayne's vengeance and guilt over the death of his parents.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Like losing your entire home planet with everyone on it including your family isn't? (Superman) I don't think anyone really concentrated so much on Batman's dark side until about the late '70s or '80s. The backstory was always there to explain Batman's motives, but they didn't really get into the twisted psychology of it. But previously (except maybe in some of the comics) they never pushed a whole movie to the point where Batman was almost beyond redemption by the end.
>
> Either way, it's interesting that the film pretty much entirely abandoned the "purpose" of the comics superhero. Usually the superhero, in spite of any psychic scars he may bear in addition to his "powers" is usually there to inspire ordinary mortals and to set an example. In Dark Knight none of the good guys are sure what kind of example they should set, and they eventually set up a dead guy who'd turned bad to be the example for the masses. The title character has been reduced to beating up prisoners running for his life. It's depressing but it probably accurately reflects how many audience members feel about the state of America. Does the word "hero" mean anything anymore? Are Americans heroic for liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam?
> ---------------------------------


Supermans backstory is just as depressing. However, his primary motivation is a strong moral compass, while Batman's is vengeance and angsty guilt. Two different stories that are told accordingly.
hamano
post #9  on July 23, 2008 - 3:02 PM PDT  
> On July 23, 2008 - 2:26 PM PDT doozer wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Supermans backstory is just as depressing. However, his primary motivation is a strong moral compass, while Batman's is vengeance and angsty guilt. Two different stories that are told accordingly.

Maybe the difference comes from not remembering your parents' death. Or maybe from just getting your super powers handed to you (hello, yellow sun!) instead of having to work for it (Alfred, do you think I'm spending too much time in the Bat Gym?)

I enjoyed The Dark Knight, surely, but it also felt deeply flawed. Hancock was more fun.
doozer
post #10  on July 23, 2008 - 3:24 PM PDT  
> On July 23, 2008 - 3:02 PM PDT hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> Maybe the difference comes from not remembering your parents' death. Or maybe from just getting your super powers handed to you (hello, yellow sun!) instead of having to work for it (Alfred, do you think I'm spending too much time in the Bat Gym?)
>
> I enjoyed The Dark Knight, surely, but it also felt deeply flawed. Hancock was more fun.
> ---------------------------------

Seriously that Superman jerk didn't have to work for a thing! Just gets everything handed to him!

I will be the first to admit that The Dark Knight would have been lame if The Joker performance wasn't so intense.
AstroAppa
post #11  on July 23, 2008 - 9:15 PM PDT  
i loved it. reminded me of the good batman comics that are out there. "long halloween", "hush", etc. and joker is a force!
weezy
post #12  on August 7, 2008 - 2:11 PM PDT  
My god, Dark Knight on IMAX was FRIGGIN INCREIBLE!!

I left the movie with a pulsing heart rate for an hour after the movie was finished. The scene where the Joker slides open the door to the slaughterhouse truck was eerily poetic.

I agree with the other points here that some parts could have been cut out or presented differently to add some cohesion and tension to the story. Harvey Dent's transformation to Two-Face felt forced and melodramatic. But even with those misfires, in the end, I was stoked to see Batman become a fugitive because of the possibilities is opens up for the next go at it.

And how bout all those rumors already swirling about for the sequel? Angelina Jolie as Catwoman? Johnny Depp as the Riddler?

Also - does anyone know if Christian Bale was jailed for physically or verbally abusing his mom and sister? Just curious.
doozer
post #13  on August 7, 2008 - 7:27 PM PDT  
I've only heard verbal abuse, but I didn't know you could go to jail for that.
Battie
post #14  on August 8, 2008 - 10:01 AM PDT  
> On July 23, 2008 - 3:24 PM PDT doozer wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I will be the first to admit that The Dark Knight would have been lame if The Joker performance wasn't so intense.
> ---------------------------------

I 100% agree. In fact, Ledger's performance is the only reason that movie was watchable. Didn't dig the first (only watched it so I could watch The Dark Knight without missing anything in the script - wasn't worth my time). Christian Bale's 'acting' sucks. We need a new Batman.
doozer
post #15  on August 8, 2008 - 10:17 AM PDT  
> On August 8, 2008 - 10:01 AM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>
> I 100% agree. In fact, Ledger's performance is the only reason that movie was watchable. Didn't dig the first (only watched it so I could watch The Dark Knight without missing anything in the script - wasn't worth my time). Christian Bale's 'acting' sucks. We need a new Batman.
> ---------------------------------

I liked Bale the first time around but this time, I don't know. Maybe it was the cheesy Darth Vader voice. Maybe it was that I had to pee an hour and a half into the film. I also started the movie in a funk because they didn't run the Watchmen trailer before showing it. I just wasn't feeling it from him, I don't know what it is. Maybe he wasn't into it any more than I was into him.
underdog
post #16  on August 27, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT  
It took me long enough to see this one!

I'd sort of lowered my expectations for it and wasn't disappointed. In some ways, story-wise I preferred Batman Returns, but I actually thought this one was more interesting psychologically. It also helps to have so many great actors in it contributing, raising it up a level -- Caine, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, of course Heath Ledger, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. She may not be a fantastic actor but she's a lot more interesting than Katie Holmes. The way they created Two-Face's, er, two faces was appropriately disturbing, too, even if he looked a bit like the melting face Terminator. I thought it a bit overlong and clunky at times but overall I maintain it's one of the best comic book movies ever. Comic Noir. A couple of great chase scenes, too.

Good interview with Christopher Nolan on KCRW's The Treatment (with Elvis Mitchell), the podcast is available online...
underdog
post #17  on August 27, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT  
Sorry, Batman Begins, not Returns! Whole different kettle of penguins, er, fish.

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.