Author Topic: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)  (Read 31834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2008, 11:20:45 PM »

Offline zerophase

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2394
  • Tommy Points: 334
  • Anything's Possible
the best part about it is the closeness to the actual comic book story of batman.



clayman would turn batman into spiderman iii... penguin just doesn't seem real enough.. i mean who is someone already living who is rich enough to make all those umbrella weapons? therefore riddler is the conclusion. ra seems iffy, thought in the tv series he never dies and always comes back but that would lead batman away from gotham.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2008, 11:29:00 PM by zerophase »

Become Legendary.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2008, 02:45:12 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
I thought it was phenomenal.  This was, far and away, my favorite "comic book movie" ever, and probably my favorite film so far this year.

Also, to respond to Nick's criticism, I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes was about 100 times better than Katie Holmes.  She's an average looking woman, sure, but what's wrong with that?  Bruce Wayne the playboy has supermodels on his arm.  Bruce Wayne the noble hero sees that beauty isn't only skin deep.  I think Gyllenhaal is a much better love interest than Kim Basinger, or Nicole Kidman, or Katie Holmes.  (Only Michelle Pfeiffer really lived up, and she wasn't really a love interest, so much.)

The *only* thing I didn't like was Batman doing his Clint Eastwood impersonation with the voice.  It just sounded a little off.  That's a very small nit pick, though.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2008, 02:50:59 PM »

Offline zerophase

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2394
  • Tommy Points: 334
  • Anything's Possible
I thought it was phenomenal.  This was, far and away, my favorite "comic book movie" ever, and probably my favorite film so far this year.

Also, to respond to Nick's criticism, I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes was about 100 times better than Katie Holmes.  She's an average looking woman, sure, but what's wrong with that?  Bruce Wayne the playboy has supermodels on his arm.  Bruce Wayne the noble hero sees that beauty isn't only skin deep.  I think Gyllenhaal is a much better love interest than Kim Basinger, or Nicole Kidman, or Katie Holmes.  (Only Michelle Pfeiffer really lived up, and she wasn't really a love interest, so much.)

The *only* thing I didn't like was Batman doing his Clint Eastwood impersonation with the voice.  It just sounded a little off.  That's a very small nit pick, though.

haha i agree with the voice thing. i mean really, batman is only a man in a mask. its impossible in reality for someone to change their voice THAT much.

Become Legendary.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2008, 03:32:48 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Considering how closely that Nolan has formed his story's characters around the late 1970's darker version of the story-line, I doubt that Mr. Reece is suddenly doing to transform from a dumpy accountant to a long legged, well dressed, bollar hat wearing Edward Nygma.

The Riddler will definitely be a big name Hollywood actor and not the near unknown actor who played Mr. Reece.

I like the Daniel Day Lewis suggestion if he channels some of the same psychotic energy he showed in Gangs of New York. Nolan, however, has seemed to go off in an unexpected direction with his casting at times. So an unexpected route wouldn't surprise me.

One way of that happening, I think,would be  having Nygma possibly being a family member of the the African-American gangster Gambol and be black would be a cool contemporary twist with Jamie Foxx as the Riddler.

I also think DiCaprio and Baron Cohen could play the part as well as both have the range of character that portraying the Riddler would require.

I'm definitely in the camp who thinks Reese COULD be the Riddler.    I've brought up several points about the character in this thread about him on Superherohype.com:  http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=307252

A lot of the fanboys are "omg no way!" against it, but it seems plausible to me if they made the Riddler a realistic unseen threat to the city.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2008, 03:38:21 PM »

Offline Byrdman

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 64
  • Tommy Points: 5
Personally I thought it was great and Ledger should at least get an oscar nomination. My nitpicks would be Bale doing that growl the whole time and just for the sake of it...where on earth does the Joker get all these goons to work for him!? I mean in the first 5 minutes of the movie he kills off everyone he hired. How does this guy have any street cred? Who's signing up to work with a guy when he's likely to burn up the money he was going to pay you and cut you up? Clearly education as well as crime is a serious issue in Gotham.
I need to post more so that I'm no longer characterized as Tony Allen

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2008, 03:56:16 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Personally I thought it was great and Ledger should at least get an oscar nomination. My nitpicks would be Bale doing that growl the whole time and just for the sake of it...where on earth does the Joker get all these goons to work for him!? I mean in the first 5 minutes of the movie he kills off everyone he hired. How does this guy have any street cred? Who's signing up to work with a guy when he's likely to burn up the money he was going to pay you and cut you up? Clearly education as well as crime is a serious issue in Gotham.
They addressed that, Byrdman.   Those kind of people are desperate and will work for whoever they can make money from.   But also in the first movie all the nutjobs who were in Arkham were released into the Narrows.  Those kind of nutjob mental-patients who have been exposed to the fear toxin naturally gravitate to a character like The Joker.  That's how they explained it in the movie.

And also... I'm sure he pays some of them.  He used the money to finance his operation and burned what he didn't need at the end.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2008, 04:29:47 PM »

Offline zerophase

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2394
  • Tommy Points: 334
  • Anything's Possible
so the movie has set the box office one day record; 66.4 mill

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUrp4FEo_7YQxrTpBze-Hk4ob7PAD92118180

Become Legendary.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2008, 05:05:03 PM »

Offline tyrone biggums

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
  • Tommy Points: 91
Well this movie was very well done and was in my opinion the best movie of the last few years. Definitely took the mantle of best comic book movie. This movie got it right with how to handle two villians and build them up, something Spiderman III failed to do. While the Joker was creepy and it would be tough to recast him, I believe someone will portray him in the 3rd one. Possibly introducing Joker's sidekick Harley by busting him out of jail. You would have to think the third one would mean absolute anarchy considering how this movie ended. If they don't decide to go the Joker route which for as dark as this series has been there really isn't too many other routes, considering alot of the characters are pretty campy. The only real "R Rated" characters in the batman universe are Joker, Two Face, Ra's Al Ghul, and at times perhaps Catwoman. But I don't see Nolan going the Riddler Catwoman route. Joker would probably be the best bet with perhaps another villian cast beside him.   

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2008, 05:08:35 PM »

Offline zerophase

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2394
  • Tommy Points: 334
  • Anything's Possible
Well this movie was very well done and was in my opinion the best movie of the last few years. Definitely took the mantle of best comic book movie. This movie got it right with how to handle two villians and build them up, something Spiderman III failed to do. While the Joker was creepy and it would be tough to recast him, I believe someone will portray him in the 3rd one. Possibly introducing Joker's sidekick Harley by busting him out of jail. You would have to think the third one would mean absolute anarchy considering how this movie ended. If they don't decide to go the Joker route which for as dark as this series has been there really isn't too many other routes, considering alot of the characters are pretty campy. The only real "R Rated" characters in the batman universe are Joker, Two Face, Ra's Al Ghul, and at times perhaps Catwoman. But I don't see Nolan going the Riddler Catwoman route. Joker would probably be the best bet with perhaps another villian cast beside him.  

i don't think they'll bring back the joker in respect of ledger's incredible portrayal. the only showing of the joker would probably be in the asylum.

Become Legendary.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2008, 09:01:44 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Loved it, but I did have a couple of issues.

It dragged a bit with the 2 Face plot line.  They could have cut him out after he killed the male cop and saved the rest for a future movie.  I was just disappointed in the lack of screen time for what was truly a great comic book villain.  He should have been saved for the third movie, which would help a lot with the villain angle.  2 Face and a new villain would have been great to carry the third movie (I do like the 2 Face/Riddler combination but that was done previously so it may be why 2 Face was killed off).

Tying into that was the pinning the 2 Face murders on Batman.  Even if you keep that plot line, there was no reason at all to make Batman a murderer.  The murders easily could have been pinned on the Joker's goons and Gordon could have just stated that Dent saved his family and was killed in the process while the bad guy with the clown mask got away.  Dent remains a hero, Batman is not a murderer.  I know pinning the murders on him kind of makes him the Dark Knight, but it wasn't necessary and irritated the crap out of me.  One of the things that makes Batman such a great hero is that he is just.  If you take that away you kind of take away from Batman.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2008, 09:58:45 PM »

Offline ma11l

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2639
  • Tommy Points: 233
  • Let's Go Celtics
Very, very good movie.  Did it live up to the hype?  I'm not sure.  There is just so much of it.  If you compared it to an NBA Finals the series would have to go 7 games with every game having at least 2 overtimes to live up to the hype.


Bale was good, Ledger was great.  I've always loved Freeman and Caine and they did their job well in their parts.


I agree that Gyllenhaal was good in this role.  I don't see Batman with some bimbo supermodel. 
"Take this down," said O'Neal. "My name is Shaquille O'Neal and Paul Pierce is the (expletive) truth. Quote me on that and don't take nothing out. I knew he could play, but I didn't know he could play like this. Paul Pierce is the truth."

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2008, 10:27:04 PM »

Offline NJCeltsFan

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 37
  • Tommy Points: 5
I saw this in an Imax theater yesterday and was blown away.  Great story, great action and Ledger was amazing as the Joker.   

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2008, 10:30:49 PM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1005
  • Tommy Points: 79
Personally I thought it was great and Ledger should at least get an oscar nomination. My nitpicks would be Bale doing that growl the whole time and just for the sake of it...where on earth does the Joker get all these goons to work for him!? I mean in the first 5 minutes of the movie he kills off everyone he hired. How does this guy have any street cred? Who's signing up to work with a guy when he's likely to burn up the money he was going to pay you and cut you up? Clearly education as well as crime is a serious issue in Gotham.

I don't know how one can get word out if one is dead.

Genius of the Joker is to pretend to be a hired goon and plant the seed in other hired goons to kill eachother off then he kills whoever is left off taking all the loot in the end, which he doesn't even care for but uses it to get other goons to do more of his dirty work.

It's actually a pretty funny cycle.

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2008, 02:51:48 AM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
It is ironic that the Joker has much disdain for people who plan things out, people who preach for order and stability.

The Joker plans out things himself for his own chaotic intentions.

Everything the Joker does is calculated. There is a specific method to his madness.

His illogicalness is almost logical....

Re: "The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2008, 09:35:50 AM »

Offline SShoreFan 2.0

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 629
  • Tommy Points: 201
as one who grew up buying $.25 comic books every Saturday with my brother and father, I am a huge fan of going to see all the "comic book" movies that come out (disclaimer, I am not one who knows the writers and artists, just one that enjoyed really good story lines).

Earlier this summer I went and saw Iron Man and thought it was a great take, good action, good characters, good build up, overall top notch for a "comic book" movie.  I thought the approach they took with Iron Man was light years ahead of the others including Spiderman.  I was extremely impressed; then I saw Batman this weekend.

This is what comes to my mind:
In 1991 the Chicago White Sox opened up the new Comiskey Park, the first new stadium in baseball since 1973 (Royals).  Although it had it's critics, it was hailed for being a great new stadium.  In 1992 Camden Yards opened up in Baltimore, revolutionizing ballparks and making the year old Comiskey   obsolete. 

Batman is Camden yards in 1992, nothing else comes close.
I love my kids, call me a sap - it's true.