The Dark Knight

[Josh]

This is the short message I sent to a few Batman-crazed friends last night:

The wife and I just got back from The Dark Knight. It's over 2 and a half hours long, and neither of us were read for it to end.

You've probably read the reviews, which have been ridiculous. Your expectations might even be somewhere in the stratosphere. Don't worry-- you won't be disappointed. To say that it's the best comic book ever is true, but hardly does it justice. The Dark Knight is singular in its achievement: Yes, the action scenes are breathtaking, and yes, there are some funny parts, and yes, and yes, Heath Ledger will probably get an Oscar nomination, which will be well-deserved; his performance here is iconic, every bit as good as Daniel Day-Lewis' seminal performance in There Will Be Blood last year. But even ignoring that for a minute: This is a powerful powerful film, an affecting work of art that gives us what might be the most harrowing portrayal of evil we've ever seen on the big screen. It's a movie about corruption and decay, and its pregnant with spiritual and political implications. And at times, it's disturbing.

It's a landmark film. The audience I saw it with held their breath from the first frame to the last, and when it was over erupted in rapturous applause.

Holyfreakingcrapitsamazing.

[Josh]

An extremely brief, paragraph-long, capsule review.

[bloop]

Well, I'm already generally inclined toward liking Batman movies, so these reviews are adding up to me being disappointed if it ends up being anything less than an A+. 

(Isn't 8 pluses after an A, like, one more than "Citizen Kane"?   )

It’ s a landmark film that no other comic book movie will ever be able to top.

So, your advice to Mr. Nolan:  Quit now.  You aren't going to top that?

[Josh]

So, your advice to Mr. Nolan:  Quit now.  You aren't going to top that?

Um, yeah, actually, I'm inclined to say that-- especially after Ledger's passing.

[spacebrat311]

I'm inclined to agree.

[bloop]

I would be inclined to agree to that assessment, but if anyone can break the "3rd superhero movie" curse, it's Christopher Nolan.  So, there is a significant part of me that wants to find out what he has in store.

[Ian]

Just saw it, and yep, best superhero movie ever made.

[Vlad!]

Very nice. Still digesting it, but three (hopefully non-spoilerful) thoughts:
1) Christopher Nolan seems intent on proving that he can create a darker Batman than Tim Burton.
2) After the first movie's almost leisurely pace, I wasn't expecting such an intense torrent of action and plot.
3) Christian Bale is a great Bruce Wayne. He does excellent as Batman as well, but I'm not sure whether to call it "Christian Bale's Batman portrayal" or "Christopher Nolan's Batman portrayal", as when he dons the suit he ceases to be a person, at least to me, and becomes something different. I'm still noodling over whether this is intentional.

I liked it, but I didn't like it in the way I expected to like it, if that makes any sense. Maybe once I've slept on it I'll know what I'm talking about.

[enemy anemone]

3) Christian Bale is a great Bruce Wayne. He does excellent as Batman as well, but I'm not sure whether to call it "Christian Bale's Batman portrayal" or "Christopher Nolan's Batman portrayal", as when he dons the suit he ceases to be a person, at least to me, and becomes something different.

I had been reading the wiki/warticle on Christian Bale earlier today. here's a bit that caught my attention when I read it and came to mind when I read your comment:

Bale had initial concerns about playing Batman, as he felt more ridiculous than intimidating in the "Batman" suit. He dealt with this by depicting Batman as a savage beast in his portrayal.

[Vlad!]

Bale had initial concerns about playing Batman, as he felt more ridiculous than intimidating in the "Batman" suit. He dealt with this by depicting Batman as a savage beast in his portrayal.

Yeah, I think that's what gets me. It seems so incongruous. In private as Bruce Wayne he's one thing. In public as Bruce Wayne he's something else again. Both of these are well-explained and work perfectly with Bale's portrayal. When he was going through his uber-ninja training he was a third thing entirely, which also worked, though the strongly disciplined if somewhat headstrong Wayne was largely abandoned in this film, replaced by a new persona who has all the willfulness but less discipline. This works too. But the animalistic, brutal Batman who seems to act as much on instinct as on rational thought is something altogether different, and doesn't fit in. The part that I'm not sure about is whether Nolan plans on bringing this to a head at some point or if it's just an artifact of how he and Bale choose to present the Batman character. If the former I can go with it, but if it's the latter I'm not convinced that it's the best portrayal.

[bloop]

when he dons the suit he ceases to be a person, at least to me, and becomes something different.

I think Wayne explains his own goals best himself in the first movie, on the jet, and he's working on them progressively.  His formal martial arts training is being used to inform his bat persona, but it is not who he will be, not in its entirety.  If he wants to be feared, he needs some level of volatility (or, it takes some doing to be feared playing Halloween).  He maintains certain restraints in costume while abandoning others (although I think he's surprisingly restrained for a man where they have the guns and he's got the gadgets - other superheros are notably less so), and he's already felt certain if perhaps indirect consequences to his methods of choice. 

I do find it interesting that he doubles as a detective CSI-style, both in the books and here.  I also thought SDG's observation that his attempts to torture information from suspects in this film have no results to show for them - the anti-24.  This film seems interested in Batman's limitations, and certainly his necessity.

[Vlad!]

Actually, I wish the films would focus more on the detective aspect (Batman is sometimes called "The World's Greatest Detective" by comics fans). His solutions to problems involve throwing money and gadgets at them. While that's OK, and certainly doesn't violate his movie persona, I'd like to see a bit more thought going into it. This is particularly evident in the interrogation scene you reference, where I would have liked to see him try and match wits instead of using his fists, especially since it's obvious that his victim was going to tell him either way and just wanted to drive him into a frenzy first.

This film seems interested in Batman's limitations, and certainly his necessity.

Oh, I totally agree with that. I'm just not sure that the limitations of the Nolan/Bale Batman are the same as the limitations of the Batman I knew as a child. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but worth pointing out.

[enemy anemone]

his attempts to torture information from suspects in this film have no results to show for them - the anti-24. 

have you seen this TDK trailer spoof? I just came across it just now and thought it was pretty funny, especially the Jack Bauer reference.

[Josh]

The Dark Knight has just surpassed the first two Godfathers, Pulp Fiction, and The Shawshank Redemption to become the highest-rated movie of all time, according to the IMDb. It has 9.5; the previous champ, The Godfather, has 9.1.

[bloop]

It's so early, though, that it isn't likely to stay there.  New movies go very high on IMDB before slipping.

Actually, I wish the films would focus more on the detective aspect (Batman is sometimes called "The World's Greatest Detective" by comics fans). His solutions to problems involve throwing money and gadgets at them. While that's OK, and certainly doesn't violate his movie persona, I'd like to see a bit more thought going into it. This is particularly evident in the interrogation scene you reference, where I would have liked to see him try and match wits instead of using his fists, especially since it's obvious that his victim was going to tell him either way and just wanted to drive him into a frenzy first.

As I said, I think the movies are still showing him becoming Batman, so you may just see him, on reflection of what's worked in the past, change his approach (if there is to be another movie).

But, I think that improbable sonar bit with the cell phones surely displays a certain genius.

[Vlad!]

Slightly more coherent thoughts on the movie. Full of spoilers. Seriously, if you haven't seen the movie, don't read this post.

* First and foremost, I feel like waaay too much stuff was crammed into this movie. By trying to give the canon a nod with the Harvey Dent stuff, the Two-Face part of the movie felt rushed, like they shoehorned it in but didn't really have time for it. Certainly it's a tribute to the strong writing and direction of the film that it still worked, and I also understand that the Batman-as-scapegoat theme was one that they wanted to work in, since it becomes a strong theme and is played off of in many different angles. The frustration is about why Dent had to be killed off so quickly.
* Related to this point, the pacing feels like a complete reversal of the first one. In Begins, the plot takes its time to wend through the course of Bruce's history and eventually introduce him as Batman by facing him off against a relatively minor villain in the Batman Rogues' Gallery. This was well-chosen, since it allowed the audience to see a Batman who was still getting used to his role as a superhero without having to instantly rise to the peak of his powers to defeat a more memorable foe. But then in TDK, Nolan busts out two of the more memorable antagonists--the Joker, possibly the most iconic Batman nemesis of all, and Two-Face, who isn't up there with Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin but is (in my mind at least) a tier above the Scarecrow--and admittedly through circumstances partially beyond his control throws them both away after one movie. TDK just felt like a non-stop torrent of plot and action when compared with Begins.
* Lucius Fox's line "it is cat-proof" when providing the new body armor probably goes down as the most awkward line in the movie and also the most forced foreshadowing Nolan has done to date. I had to suppress a groan.

I saw the movie at 9:15 on a Saturday night (and it didn't start until 9:30...freaking quarter-hour of previews...) and I had things to do before going to bed to then wake up at 7:00 Sunday morning. That I with my poor attention span sat through the entire movie in these conditions enthralled, without once so much as looking at my watch, definitely says something. Nolan has done more for Batman than anybody since Bob Kane, and he has given no indication of slowing down. Whether he can top this one or not, I'm looking forward to what he comes up with next.

[bloop]

Spoilers on spoilers, so do beware:

The frustration is about why Dent had to be killed off so quickly.

I'm not absolutely positive that he was killed off at all.  It'd be interesting to see the fall-out of a cover-up.

Nolan busts out two of the more memorable antagonists--the Joker, possibly the most iconic Batman nemesis of all, and Two-Face, who isn't up there with Riddler, Catwoman, and The Penguin but is (in my mind at least) a tier above the Scarecrow--and admittedly through circumstances partially beyond his control throws them both away after one movie.

See above.  Absolute shame about the realities surrounding a Joker reprise, though.

* Lucius Fox's line "it is cat-proof" when providing the new body armor probably goes down as the most awkward line in the movie and also the most forced foreshadowing Nolan has done to date. I had to suppress a groan.

heh.

[Vlad!]

I'm not absolutely positive that he was killed off at all.  It'd be interesting to see the fall-out of a cover-up.

I'm fairly certain that Dent is dead, first because Nolan already used the resurrection gambit once, and second because, given a body to examine at his leisure, it would be pretty far out-of-character for Batman to mistake an unconscious body for a dead one. Plus, what motive would Gordon have to maintain the cover-up?

Absolute shame about the realities surrounding a Joker reprise, though.

The friends I watched the movie with and I discussed the possibility of someone else playing the Joker. It's pretty clear that Nolan was not finished with the character, and had Ledger not died I would definitely expect to see him back in the next film. As it is, though, I'm not sure what he'll do. One of the reasons it's a shame that Two-Face was killed off is that in the canon he becomes sort of the same style of psychotic mob boss that the Joker is, though without a lot of the wheels-within-wheels conniving.

[bloop]

I'm fairly certain that Dent is dead

I think he likely is, but I'm not absolutely certain.  It'd be a shame to see the stellar make-up/effects work they did with him go to so much waste, though, wouldn't it?  I think I need to see the film again to cement what I think about Dent's death, but I know I liked the way it was handled with Batman as the scapegoat.

[murlough23]

* First and foremost, I feel like waaay too much stuff was crammed into this movie.

Indeed. I'm trying to sum it all up in my head, but it's hard to even make a Dent in it.

[spacebrat311]

Haha, you're such a joker.

[murlough23]

Haha, you're such a joker.

Seriously.

[murlough23]

OK, this shows you how slow I am. I didn't realize until reading the Wikipedia entry on the movie that Maggie Gyllenhall's character was supposed to be the same one as Katie Holmes' character from the first movie. Obviously a blatant recasting, and I suppose it was inevitable since getting Katie Holmes back would have requireda rescue operation of monumental proportions. But I think we can all agree that Gyllenhall > Holmes anyway. They just removed the only thing that wasn't awesome about the first movie.

[Vlad!]

Major spoilers in this post

OK, this shows you how slow I am. I didn't realize until reading the Wikipedia entry on the movie that Maggie Gyllenhall's character was supposed to be the same one as Katie Holmes' character from the first movie. Obviously a blatant recasting, and I suppose it was inevitable since getting Katie Holmes back would have requireda rescue operation of monumental proportions. But I think we can all agree that Gyllenhall > Holmes anyway. They just removed the only thing that wasn't awesome about the first movie.

I'm not sure if Maggie Gyllenhaal was a better Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes; the character came across as more self-confident and even brash. I was a little annoyed with how the character was both written and portrayed up until she was killed off[1], at which point it really ceased to matter (I also get annoyed with superheroes revealing their secret identities, especially to love interests, so I was kind of glad to see her killed off for that reason as well).

[1] I realize I am opening myself up to a response of "we can't be sure she was killed off", but since Dawes isn't part of Batman canon then I don't think they're going to make another "up from the ashes" villain out of her, but for her to come back on the same side wouldn't make a lot of sense (and since they already did that with Gordon it would be putting the Batman series up against the LotR trilogy for the "most fake deaths of plot characters" award).

[Josh]

Fwiw, I think Dawes is a much better character in this film, though this is probably do to better writing than to a better performance by Maggie G per se. Holmes did fine with what she was given.

[bloop]

Yeah, for all the talk of Holmes being a major weak link in "Batman Begins", I just didn't see it that way.  I consider Holmes vs Gyllenhaal basically a non-issue.

[Wildcatblue7]

Major spoilers in this post
I'm not sure if Maggie Gyllenhaal was a better Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes; the character came across as more self-confident and even brash. I was a little annoyed with how the character was both written and portrayed up until she was killed off[1], at which point it really ceased to matter (I also get annoyed with superheroes revealing their secret identities, especially to love interests, so I was kind of glad to see her killed off for that reason as well).

[1] I realize I am opening myself up to a response of "we can't be sure she was killed off", but since Dawes isn't part of Batman canon then I don't think they're going to make another "up from the ashes" villain out of her, but for her to come back on the same side wouldn't make a lot of sense (and since they already did that with Gordon it would be putting the Batman series up against the LotR trilogy for the "most fake deaths of plot characters" award).

Make her Harley Quinn or Catwoman.  Ding!

no, just kidding.  I really need to stop reading this thread since I haven't actually seen it yet.  Wednesday can't come fast enough.

[murlough23]

Yeah, for all the talk of Holmes being a major weak link in "Batman Begins", I just didn't see it that way.  I consider Holmes vs Gyllenhaal basically a non-issue.

I guess I've never found Holmes to be a strong actress; she seemed way out of her league in the first film. Perhaps I just can't get over the whole "I can't believe you were dumb enough to let Tom Cruise run your life" thing, and to be fair, there are plenty of other actors/actresses whose work I enjoy, who have done really dumb things in real life.

[bloop]

Don't get me wrong, I think Gyllenhaal is a much better actress than Holmes, but I didn't find either actress in this particular role to be distractingly unbelievable or bad.  *shrugs*

[dgp11776]

I'm hoping to go see this tonight.

[murlough23]

Don't get me wrong, I think Gyllenhaal is a much better actress than Holmes, but I didn't find either actress in this particular role to be distractingly unbelievable or bad.  *shrugs*

Maybe I just have a thing for Maggie G. Who knows.

Now if I had been her, acting opposite Heath Ledger, I don't know how I'd have been able to stop thinking, "Weird, he kissed my brother."

[Josh]

Seeing it in IMAX tomorrow night!!

[murlough23]

Seeing it in IMAX tomorrow night!!

Dude. I think I would get motion sickness.

NP: "The Dull Flame of Desire", Bjork feat. Antony Hegarty

[bloop]

The Hong Kong gliding scene was the one filmed in IMAX, correct?

[Josh]

The Hong Kong gliding scene was the one filmed in IMAX, correct?

There were two-- that one, and the first appearance of The Joker, which Nolan wanted to totally pop off the screen at you.

[enemy anemone]

that's odd; I read elsewhere that there are 4 IMAX scenes.

[Josh]

that's odd; I read elsewhere that there are 4 IMAX scenes.

Hmmmm... you might be right. I read two, but I don't remember where.

[enemy anemone]

a quick google indicates that many sites say four scenes, but foxbusiness.com says 6 sequences. what I'm wondering is which scenes in particular.

...I want to see it in IMAX... earlier I wasn't sure since I was afraid I'd get massive movie headache, but I didn't get any movie headache at the regular theater. so I think I'll be okay.

[dgp11776]

Yep, best superhero movie ever made.  And, I can say something I never thought I would say - Heath Ledger is a better Joker than Jack Nicholson.

[dgp11776]

Potential Spoiler Alert

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/

Aaron Eckhart would reprise his role from The Dark Knight - because working with Christian Bale is "phenomenal".

Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film.

He tells WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."

So is Dent alive, then???