I just watched Batman: The Dark Knight...

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Geocentricity
The Joker portrayed by Nicholson and Ledger shouldn't be compared because the mood of each film is different. The Dark Knight is darker, more down to earth. The Keaton versions is more along the lines of tommygun wielding mobsters from the Dick Tracy comics.

Nicholson could easily do Ledger's role in The Dark Knight (i.e. same psychotic mannerisms) but Ledger was cast as the Joker. So why compare reality to a hypothetical?

Nicholson would own the role if this was shot back then.

 

[Vidda]

So I woke up on Tuesday morning (8AM) to my roommate shouting like he was about to jizz his pants. This continued every 5 minutes for the next 2.5 hours. I officially hate the Dark Knight.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Vidda
So I woke up on Tuesday morning (8AM) to my roommate shouting like he was about to jizz his pants. This continued every 5 minutes for the next 2.5 hours. I officially hate the Dark Knight.

<Merrill Howard Kalen>

Uhhh-aaaahh-ioeoooouuuhhhh!

</Merrill Howard Kalen>

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Vidda
So I woke up on Tuesday morning (8AM) to my roommate shouting like he was about to jizz his pants. This continued every 5 minutes for the next 2.5 hours. I officially hate the Dark Knight.

the guy was jacking off to the movie? maybe he should have played the joker.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: sdifox
It was ok, I liked Batman Begins better. I have a feeling Maggie is better than Katie more because of the script than her acting abilities. And I did not find Heath's interpretation of The Joker all that great. He was just following the script. He did not come across as creppy, just psycho. I do have to say it is more in line with my understanding of The Joker. But that is not because of his acting. He did his job but did not shine.

Was I not paying attention or did the Rachel character just not have as many scenes in the Dark Knight compared to Batman Begins? Katie Holmes was ok, nothing spectacular, but how much was there for her to really do aside from scream. You could interchange Maggie and Katie in both movies and I probably wouldn't care. And boy does Rachel seem to like shitting where she eats.

With all the hype about Heath Ledger, I think I was let down. Don't get me wrong, he did the role well. You have to wonder though, was it the make-up , the script or was it the delivery? Now, Jack Nicholson, that is the Joker. He was creepy, not over the top, balancing crazy with professional and in a way, perfect.

 

[KeypoX]

Yeah it wasnt that great but it was... ok to good. Most peoples perception is defined by what others think...

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Imp

Originally posted by: sdifox
It was ok, I liked Batman Begins better. I have a feeling Maggie is better than Katie more because of the script than her acting abilities. And I did not find Heath's interpretation of The Joker all that great. He was just following the script. He did not come across as creppy, just psycho. I do have to say it is more in line with my understanding of The Joker. But that is not because of his acting. He did his job but did not shine.

Was I not paying attention or did the Rachel character just not have as many scenes in the Dark Knight compared to Batman Begins? Katie Holmes was ok, nothing spectacular, but how much was there for her to really do aside from scream. You could interchange Maggie and Katie in both movies and I probably wouldn't care. And boy does Rachel seem to like shitting where she eats.

With all the hype about Heath Ledger, I think I was let down. Don't get me wrong, he did the role well. You have to wonder though, was it the make-up , the script or was it the delivery? Now, Jack Nicholson, that is the Joker. He was creepy, not over the top, balancing crazy with professional and in a way, perfect.

Well, I know Maggie is a much better actress than Katie. I am just saying the script allows more room, albeit shorter screen time, to show off her skill. I am saying perhaps Katie got short changed. But I am not quite sure.

Maggie did really well with her role.

 

[ViviTheMage]

saw it again last night...still like it...baile's voice over thing is pretty retarded though.

It seemed like any other batman movie, haha.

 

[Crono]

In terms of action, I think the movie was good and fast paced (as it should be). The mood was dark, the plot twisted (in a good way), and it was overall well done, especially with the visuals and special effects. Gotham came to life as a corrupt, two-faced city, as it did in Batman Begins.

Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was good, but not quite as good as the hype made it out to be. The Joker is a man who is intelligent, twisted, maniacal, greedy, and pitiable. I think Ledger came close to delivering all those qualities to meet my expectations, but somehow I think he fell short in displaying that sheer jocular-maniacal quality that is distinctively the Joker. I think the Joker from "Batman: The Animated Series" is the best incarnation of the Joker, but perhaps that is because animation allows for exaggerated facial expressions that are simply not possible in real life (the creepy voice acting done by Mark Hamill was superb, too).

Michael Caine was fine as Alfred, though he seems to offer too much sage advice - he shouldn't talk as much, in my opinion. Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel didn't add much to the movie, or take away much, so I won't say anything about her. I think Gary Oldman was the perfect Gordon, though, and Aaron Eckhart was good as Harvey Dent. The Two-Face story should have been fleshed out in a different movie, however.

I don't find too much to complain about Batman himself (Christian Bale), but I do agree that the raspy voice is a little annoying. If his voice were simply deeper, and not raspy, I think it would have come out better. To me, it always seemed as Bruce Wayne was the false identity, the one with a fake voice and personality, and Batman was the true. Bale did stay true to that in his acting, but in "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", it seems as Bale is hurting his throat trying to talk like that. It's not that big a deal, and the effect is still plausible, but I am saying it could have been done better (maybe not by Bale, though).

"The Dark Knight" was a good movie, but not "the best movie ever" (many of my friends disagree with me). It was the best superhero movie I have seen, though, and was a good enough adaptation that it didn't make me cringe at various parts throughout the movie - a rare thing for any movie of this genre ("Iron Man" is the only other exception). It was also a sequel that greatly improved upon the original, and that, too, is rare.

9/10 rating for "The Dark Knight"

 

[Vidda]

Another problem with the movie is that it uses the tired-ass theme of men in costumes. Original Batman wasn't during a time when comic books had been done to death in the movies. Now, however, the last thing I want to see is another gd action movie with the same theme.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

You realise most of the people on Earth are stupid right? I am not talking about opinion of movies, just people in general.

And ATOT is different... how? What's the largest demographic that went to see TDK? High School Kids, College Kids, and other people in their 20s. Most of whom have grown up using the internet and have full knowledge/capability to post on web forums.

I have found that blockbuster movie ratings tend to be exaggerated simply because there is more youngster watching them. Youngster that have not actually seen a good movie.

There are a few old farts here to counter the tide, albeit mostly failing due to inferior numbers.

The problem is that people used words to describe things when they mean it in a different manner. It's just how the internet is. There are lots of phrases now that are misquoted and misused. "Meh" has become one of them.

Anyways....Dark Knight was a good movie....it just was not epic like everyone is saying. Now, thake what I just said....people will concentrate on the "not epic" part and translate that too I did not care much for the movie. No, I did like the movie, though. I just did not think it was epic like everyone and their mother says.

 

[DomS]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

You realise most of the people on Earth are stupid right? I am not talking about opinion of movies, just people in general.

And ATOT is different... how? What's the largest demographic that went to see TDK? High School Kids, College Kids, and other people in their 20s. Most of whom have grown up using the internet and have full knowledge/capability to post on web forums.

I have found that blockbuster movie ratings tend to be exaggerated simply because there is more youngster watching them. Youngster that have not actually seen a good movie.

There are a few old farts here to counter the tide, albeit mostly failing due to inferior numbers.

The problem is that people used words to describe things when they mean it in a different manner. It's just how the internet is. There are lots of phrases now that are misquoted and misused. "Meh" has become one of them.

Anyways....Black Knight was a good movie....it just was not epic like everyone is saying. Now, thake what I just said....people will concentrate on the "not epic" part and translate that too I did not care much for the movie. No, I did like the movie, though. I just did not think it was epic like everyone and their mother says.

LOL @ Black Knight....fighting Count Blackula and Blackenstein in the coming sequal

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Gibson486
The problem is that people used words to describe things when they mean it in a different manner. It's just how the internet is. There are lots of phrases now that are misquoted and misused. "Meh" has become one of them.

Anyways....Black Knight was a good movie....it just was not epic like everyone is saying. Now, thake what I just said....people will concentrate on the "not epic" part and translate that too I did not care much for the movie. No, I did like the movie, though. I just did not think it was epic like everyone and their mother says.

I think one of the differences may be that for a comic book movie, it's much, much better than the typical drivel that comes out of Hollywood. Some may simply be looking at it as one of the best comic-based movies, which I think it was good for that.

Originally posted by: Imp
With all the hype about Heath Ledger, I think I was let down. Don't get me wrong, he did the role well. You have to wonder though, was it the make-up , the script or was it the delivery? Now, Jack Nicholson, that is the Joker. He was creepy, not over the top, balancing crazy with professional and in a way, perfect.

Have you watched the original Batman in awhile? Nicholson wasn't really creepy in the movie... he was more "silly" than anything. The only creepy aspect he had was how he stalked the one girl.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

You realise most of the people on Earth are stupid right? I am not talking about opinion of movies, just people in general.

And ATOT is different... how? What's the largest demographic that went to see TDK? High School Kids, College Kids, and other people in their 20s. Most of whom have grown up using the internet and have full knowledge/capability to post on web forums.

I have found that blockbuster movie ratings tend to be exaggerated simply because there is more youngster watching them. Youngster that have not actually seen a good movie.

There are a few old farts here to counter the tide, albeit mostly failing due to inferior numbers.

The problem is that people used words to describe things when they mean it in a different manner. It's just how the internet is. There are lots of phrases now that are misquoted and misused. "Meh" has become one of them.

Anyways....Black Knight was a good movie....it just was not epic like everyone is saying. Now, thake what I just said....people will concentrate on the "not epic" part and translate that too I did not care much for the movie. No, I did like the movie, though. I just did not think it was epic like everyone and their mother says.

That is another issue facing us today, the lack of precision in the use of the language. Too many mehs and it makes one look stupid or at least linguistically challenged.

It is fascinating that in this age of self proclamation, most are failing at communicating effectively.

Like I said, it was ok, nothing to write home about. I was far more impressed by Stranger than Fiction than the Dark Knight. I somehow managed to not watch Stranger than Fiction til recently.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Gibson486

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

You realise most of the people on Earth are stupid right? I am not talking about opinion of movies, just people in general.

And ATOT is different... how? What's the largest demographic that went to see TDK? High School Kids, College Kids, and other people in their 20s. Most of whom have grown up using the internet and have full knowledge/capability to post on web forums.

I have found that blockbuster movie ratings tend to be exaggerated simply because there is more youngster watching them. Youngster that have not actually seen a good movie.

There are a few old farts here to counter the tide, albeit mostly failing due to inferior numbers.

The problem is that people used words to describe things when they mean it in a different manner. It's just how the internet is. There are lots of phrases now that are misquoted and misused. "Meh" has become one of them.

Anyways....Black Knight was a good movie....it just was not epic like everyone is saying. Now, thake what I just said....people will concentrate on the "not epic" part and translate that too I did not care much for the movie. No, I did like the movie, though. I just did not think it was epic like everyone and their mother says.

LOL @ Black Knight....fighting Count Blackula and Blackenstein in the coming sequal

OOpps....mean the dark night...sorry, i am enjoying lunch too much now (left over ribeye...MMMMMMMMM....)

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

I think one of the differences may be that for a comic book movie, it's much, much better than the typical drivel that comes out of Hollywood. Some may simply be looking at it as one of the best comic-based movies, which I think it was good for that.


Have you watched the original Batman in awhile? Nicholson wasn't really creepy in the movie... he was more "silly" than anything. The only creepy aspect he had was how he stalked the one girl.

I agree that it is one of the better comic book based movies. Mind you, they have had a few kicks at it so they are bound to get better at it.

Nicholson was performing to the level called for. It was a different tone, darker than the tv series. Back then it was considered very dark.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: manowar821
I love it, but there is one movie that tops it, IMO. Iron Man.

Oh, hell yeah!:thumbsup:

Oof. THAT movie was awful. Just awful. Blatantly appealing to supressed nerds who want to have millions of dollars and hot girls around them so that they can show all those bullies who attacked them in school. Awful movie. My gf said she'd dump me if I ever tried to get her to watch a movie that bad again.

I know you are entitled to your opinion and all, but why the need to be a troll? Did you ever read the Iron Man comics, or see the cartoons growing up? The movie is basically the same. Iron Man was easily one of my favorite heroes growing up. You must be some sort of super genius to pinpoint the exact target audience the movie producers/director intended.

BTW, TDK was awesome - a bit overrated though.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: DomS
Um.......It wasn't bad...But really? All that commotion? I liked Batman Begins better. The stupid effect they put on CHristian Baile's voice whenever he was wearing the bat suit was ridiculous. I'm not saying it was awful....but I mean....I'm confused, why is this one of the best movies ever?? Are there really that many repressed losers out there who identify with the ideals of batman that they see themselves enacting that life for themselves if only given the chance, that their undying praise of this movie drowns out those that say 'wait...that's it??'

Oh, and Heath Ledger's performance was average. I'm sorry, but if he was alive today no one would be making that big of a deal of it. I keep hearing about how it was such a dark performance that it drove him back to using pills.....um.....it wasn't THAT dark. I mean he had a few moments, but other than that...

Overall a movie with average amounts of action, average acting performances, below average character depth....and that's about it.

Lets see you do better.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I watched the Dark Knight again over the weekend and came to a somehwat shocking realization... as far as replay value goes, I really enjoy Batman Begins more than TDK.

 

[Doboji]

Well you are all entitled to your opinions.... I felt that TDK was an absolutely phenomenal move. I thought Ledger's acting was downright superb. The action sequences were fantastic... the whole film was just incredibly well done... and in my mind, it is currently the king of all movies of this type to date.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

I gave it a meh, so here are some of my favorites:

Dr. Zhivago
The Big Lebowski
Taegukgi Hwinallimyo
All Miyazaki and Kurosawa
Shawshank Redemption
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Silence of the Lambs
Dr. Strangelove
Apocalypse Now
Forrest Gump
Das Boot
Der Untergang
The Great Escape
Amadeus
Coming to America
Blade Runner
Soylent Green
Planet of the Apes
Patton
Young Frankenstein

You thought Coming to America was a great movie? really?

 

[eddiebravo]

i thought it was 10x better than batman begins. my only real gripe was batmans raspy voice, but even that wasnt really a big deal.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Doboji
What confuses me, is alot of people on ATOT seem to give TDK a "meh" rating, and yet the rest of the known universe seems to recognize it as a eye poppingly good. What is it about ATOT that allows for this rift? Furthermore, what movies ARE good to these folks... I suspect it's more a matter of people on ATOT being negative nancys than it is being aware intelligent movie critics.

I gave it a meh, so here are some of my favorites:

Dr. Zhivago
The Big Lebowski
Taegukgi Hwinallimyo
All Miyazaki and Kurosawa
Shawshank Redemption
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Silence of the Lambs
Dr. Strangelove
Apocalypse Now
Forrest Gump
Das Boot
Der Untergang
The Great Escape
Amadeus
Coming to America
Blade Runner
Soylent Green
Planet of the Apes
Patton
Young Frankenstein

You thought Coming to America was a great movie? really?

on that list Young Frankenstein and Forest Gump are the only ones I liked. (Lambs, Coming to America, Blade Runner, Apes are the only ones i've seen in addition)

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: irishScott
As for corny... how so? The Bank robbery scene was designed to be entertaining obviously. I laughed and cheered my ass off. Same story with the Joker blowing up the hospital (although that was no cheering and more of a WTF laugh). The Batman/Joker/Dent chase was anything but corny, neither was the climactic battle.

The plot was complex as hell, the characters were complex as hell, the acting was excellent on all sides (with Ledger singled out obviously. The guy deserves an Oscar dead or not). This movie was well deserving of the hype it got. I wouldn't call it the "best movie of all time", but it's up there.

Cheering the Bank and Hospital scenes? Why? They weren't that entertaining.

Ledger deserves an Oscar? Why? He should no complexity or depth to his character, acted the same way the whole movie.

Man, some folks haven't seen a well acted/complex movie before or are just sheeple.

EXACTLY. The scenes weren't THAT entertaining, and Ledger's Joker wasn't that great. I honestly thought he was the weakest character. There was nothing...'Jokery' about him. Change his makeup and he could've been playing virtually any other villain. There was nothing about his portrayal that really tapped into the roots of the joker character. It was a typical villain, in the joker's makeup. And as you said, the performance was wooden and didn't change throughout the movie.

It also felt like there was no real buildup throughout the film. It was like a 2.5 hour plateau.

Completely agree. The only character development from the Joker/Ledger was learning how he got the scars around his mouth which he repeated time after time which got tiring.

 

[Sinsear]

I just watched it for the first time. I really enjoyed it. No way near the best movie ever, but very entertaining.