I liked it more that Batman Begins, as I just get bored sitting through the origin stories whenever there's an attempt to start a new superhero franchise.
The movie did involve some stretches of suspension of disbelief (how does the Joker get all that fuel into the ships and buildings without anyone noticing) but all in all an enjoyable ride. _________________
Ok - I agree that DK was over-hyped, and the Joker being "the best ever performance on a screen...etc" was much more to do with Heath Ledger having died than the acting he did when he was alive (which was mostly very good, it has to be said).
However - I only ever thought Batman begins was a 6.5 out of 10. It was ok to watch, and we own it on DVD, but basically I found it just kind of went along, doing nothing to offend, but doing nothing to inspire either.
None of the characters - good or bad made me actually care about them - and I just find Christian Bale kind of insipid and "meh". Also he has tiny cockerel's eyes.
I did thoroughly enjoy DK (although as a "summer blockbuster" and all that that means - not as a great piece of art) - yes there are flaws - but I am pleased that they had the balls to go through with the Rachel storyline, I really liked the Joker portrayal (especially the "multiple choice past"), and I thought Gordon was very good.
I think it is very hard to try and judge a performance of a character like the Joker against a "straight" performance as you can do things that would never be available to someone playing a person in a drama about real people.
The Harvey Dent thing was a bit strange - quite a waste of a major canon character, if he is actually dead, of course.
I realise the reason for the disguised whispery voice - but it does not work for me. In fact I don't think there has been a Batman onscreen yet that has convincingly portrayed Batman, Bruce Wayne the image and Bruce Wayne the man. I think they should give Josh Brolin a go.
Yet again Batman is blown off the screen by the Villain. It doesn't really matter if he is there or not and you have no reason to care about him.
I guess the "Where's the climax" is because they were trying to get the "dark second act" / "Empire Strikes Back" vibe - I don't think they pulled it off though.
I didn't find it "slow" - but there is some slightly strange pacing around the Dent storyline.
Overall I would have been happier if they had just made "year one" and "the killing joke" - but overall I much preferred DK to BB.
And Waffle - how could you say such things about LOTR! _________________
well im turning on the lot of you, i saw the film the same time as bats (found him sitting behind me when the lights came up, always a shock ) and i disagree with the lot of you.
The film was not about batman and thats the point. Its about fear, madness and what a hero is. I think it pulled off all of these perfectly. The slow vibe helped build the unexpected scenes and deaths.
I think to many critics are now turning on heath ledgers performance as good only because he is dead, it was good you bunch of fools. The man brought across randomness and a man without a goal perfectly.
As to the comment about where is the climax, pah and fie to you. The climax is the self realisation you get from the fact the joker actually won. Let me repeat that for you, the villain won in a superhero movie.
Harvey dent did what he needed to for the story, created the white knight and fell due to inexplicable loss. The only thing they could have done is really show how much harvey dent did love her.
I think it was better than batman begins for previously stated reasons, it was not an origin story with some bollocks about liam neason.
Go on then turn on me.....
p.s I agree the 12a rating was to low, a guy got dropped of a building for christ sake, joker cut someone a chelsea smile and the content was mentally challenging that could effect some people at that age. If this was a game no way would it be that low a rating _________________ Ninjarific
Sorry waffle really can't agree with you. Ledgers performance is very very good and yes I have detached myself from the whole fact is dead. If you look at it simply, he put across an impressively real and convincing performance. Not only was he exceptionally creepy and psychotic he also managed to make his view on chaos etc understandable and almost sympathetic. How many other performances have you seen this year, or for the last couple of years for that matter, that have seen an actor quite so change their stereotype and personality for a film.
If you watch half of Ledgers previous work he plays a jokey laid back person (10 things I have about you, Knights Tale etc), in some he stretches like Brokeback Mountain but none of them see him quite doing what he does in DK. He gets the nuances of the character just right even down to the guy sucking on his lips as he tries to pull in the saliva that slips out due to his scars. It is an Oscar worthy performance, maybe that's because there hasn't been much else this year that is or maybe just maybe it is because he was very very good.
The pacing of the film was fairly good, I didn't find myself bored but I did notice what Empire meant about the disjointed nature of some of the sub plots (again I thought Empires review was fairly balanced, better than their Journey to the Centre of the Earth review... crap film), like the random trip to China. The film was slow in as much as Heat was slow, there are reasons this comparison has been made between the two.
I'll agree that Harvey Dents transformation was a little bit quick but then again how many films/comics have explored why him getting burnt down one side of his face sent him nuts (I could be wrong on the comics). I suppose in DK they do follow down the route that he lost his fiancee and to an extent it was Gordons fault, Dent doesn't go on a random killing spree he merely seeks out the people he feels were responsible.
The only thing that really bugged me was their reasoning behind turning on Batman.... Just say it was one of the Jokers goons?! _________________ Pro Massacre Boy!
Just in case it may have got lost in the ramble - I loved DK, it thought it was a 9/10 film as opposed to a 6.6 for BB.
I also loved this Joker - but it was not "the best acting in the world ever". I will say it was the most interesting and charismatic thing I have seen on a screen this year. The "some men just want to watch the world burn" was portrayed perfectly - and my two favourite moments, "why would I want to kill you? You complete me" and "I'm like a dog chasing cars..." were mind blowing.
So - now for the big question - if you had been on one of the boats, would you have pushed the detonator button (provided you could get your hands on it)?
We were talking about this for quite a long time afterwards - I immediately said I would have DEFINITELY pushed the button. Other people I was with were more reasoned and Cy even proved through game theory that you would have a better chance of survival by not pushing it - but it would have been too late for me by then _________________
Personally I don't think I would. I would have to weigh up whether or not I though enough of the convicts were repeat offenders etc, which is something you could never really know. _________________ Pro Massacre Boy!
That's all very well now, but you wouldn't have any hindsight.
We could think of the following outcomes of pressing the button:
1) It works as described and blows up the other boat
2) It is a trick and blows up your boat
3) It blows up both boats
4) It blows up neither boat on purpose
5) It malfunctions and does not blow anything
6) Both boats blow up anyway
What I want to know is why did no one think of trying to defuse the bomb in the hour they had?
Why did no one try to escape? Yes, I know the Joker said what would happen, but you might chance it, given that nothing he said can be relied on any more than anything else you may as well take your chances.
Why did any of these people think it was a good idea to catch a boat of all things under the circumstances (not the convicts, obviously as they had no choice).
In fact, though, most thought experiments like this when done in a psychology lab have the outcome that people are prepared to let bad things happen by omission of action, but have a greater problem when they have to take the action to deliberately make something happen. In both cases most people's first question to the tester is "do I know the people" - which is very interesting. _________________
And that's another thing! (thanks for reminding me).
The boats - those bloody boats... what the hell was the point. No
bigboombang? Thanks a lot Nolan. You build it up, and then absolutely fck all happens - some boss-eyed con decides to spare the lives of those on the other boat... yeah, like that'd happen!
And I maintain my position on Ledger, he was good, but one note.
_________________ "I thought your damn ninja was supposed to take care of Robocop"
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) and i disagree with the lot of you.
