not when the person hasn't even seen the movie or the movie has gone right over their heads and they come in here saying it's bad or whatever, but why?? I mean say it with facts.

Fact: Harvey Dent flailed around, and that's how he fell. I saw it on a giant fucking IMAX screen within hours of writing my post where I said that.

We get it, you loved the movie, it's the best movie you ever saw, etc. That doesn't mean only you or people who agree with you have anything to say. Loving a movie (or a book, or a song, or a piece of art) is ultimately not really about facts after a certain point. Everyone who's not a self-absorbed idiot knows that.

__________________
We are sorry, the mind you have reached is not a working mind.
Please hang up and die again.
Please hang up,
And die again.

As good as The Dark Knight is, nothing got to me the way the Selina/Catwoman stuff in Batman Returns did.

There were parts of that movie that were ridiculous, and it certainly didn't represent the source material very well.

But that scene where Bruce and Selina are dancing, Siouxie Sioux is playing, Selina loses her shit for a moment and then they figure out each other's secret identities...that always gives me shivers.

The Dark Knight was more intellectually satisfying or whatever and is better as a cohesive film than Batman Returns (all that shit involving the Penguin is fairly fucking tedious), but BR has a few moments that are untouchable in terms of movie magic (to put it in the most hackneyed terms possible).

I sort of see the Burton films (well the first one and parts of the second) as some stylish, lurid movies that will always hold up (like Suddenly Last Summer) whereas The Dark Knight is more of a piece of craftsmanship that is powerful at the time but years later just seems bloated and of its time (like From Here to Eternity).

This was a great post until the last line, lol. Trust me, the dark knight will hold up years from now.

And I agree, as a whole I don't think Batman Returns is better than the new batman films and there are some scenes in Returns that are really lame and ridiculous BUT Catwoman was genius. She trully was.

And some of her moments were pure movie popcorn hollywood magic for the ages, like for instance the kiss under the miscletoe, remeber?? when she licks him, I mean I just melt.

And the Penguin completely trampled and tarnished over Catwoman. They wrote the film to make the penguin the main villain but actually he sghould've been ion the background, in fact the only memorable thing about it is Catwoman, to me.

so what?? you talked about it as if it were this huge glitch of the script that ruined the whole motherfucking movie.

I don't see anything wrong with the scene or the fact that he fell, things like that I'm sure happen in those type of situations.

There is opinion and then there is fact, and none of the criticism of the dark knight, at least not the ones I've seen, are supported on facts.

You thought the batman voice is ridiculous?? fine, that is your lame ass opinion, he has that voice for a reason and it's justifiable in the movie.

You thought the movie was boring?? fine, that's your perception because it went over your head, but the truth is there is nothing boring about it and the great script on wich the movie is based on is the proof of that fact.

I could go on and on.

The movie is good, period. It may not be the best movie in the history of film but it's a very very good popcorn movie like they haven't been made in years and some people may not like it and that is their opinion, fine but the movie is good.

A few days ago, I don't remember where, I read something really cool about the dark knight, and it went along the lines of: the dark knight is that rare thing where everyone can agree on, and nowadays we need something like that.

It ws something like that. The point is that, even though I'm sure some people have hated the movie, this is a movie that people as a whole have embraced and liked. The critics loved it, the people loved it, it's on its way to becoming the movie with the second biggest box office record in the US, I mean if you didn't like it FINE, go and hate on the movie with the two other people who also didn't like it but this is a good good movie and I for once I'm going to connect with the rest of the popullation and love this movie also, because it's that good.

The other part I didn't like about Dark Night was that it didn’t work as a complete film; it worked almost as a chapter. My feeling is that sequels (or whatever you want call them) should feel like their own movie. Of course you should be somewhat aware of whom the characters are and have some sort of idea of the continuous plotline, but too much of Dark Night seemed brief and ham-fisted. Harvey Dent morphs into to Two Face and then poof he is gone (or so we think). There were too many underdeveloped characters and plot lines.

this is exactly what I'm talking about. I have no idea what movie you are talking about.

Have you ever read Batman: The Long Halloween?? it's a series that spawned for 12 monthly issues, a year I guess, and the dark knight is based heavily on it.

In the long halloween you see the transformation of Harvey Dent into Two Face, and it's done in a year long series, and there's lots of depth to it and all.

Well Christopher Nolan managed to succesfully present the transformation of Harvey in 2 hours, just like the comic writers did in 12 months AND he even went deeper!!!! the character has more depth and complexity in the movie wich is only 2 hours long than in the comic books that had 12 issues.

Underdeveloped characters¿??? I have NO IDEA what you are talking about. There is NO such thing in the dark knight. I suggest you see the movie again or just get out of the thread because it seems that you have a preconceived notiong of the film that stops you from seeing what it really is, or I don't know what's wrong with you but I don't see anything of what you are saying in the movie.


In fact I am going to go ahead and say the complete opposite. I love the Dark Knight because in my opinion it is so well done that it gives the right amount of attention to each of the characters, without sacrificing any of them, and all of them come across as deep and complex. So in a way it's a great achievement script wise.

And, the movie does not end with a cliffhanger or an open ending, in fact it has a quite solid ending. I'm suire there wuill be a sequel but the movie stands on its own.

Actually, I don't think there's anything about the movie version of Two-Face that hasn't been covered several times elsewhere. It was basically the same character we've seen countless times, everywhere except Batman Forever.

Batman: The Animated Series managed to present the Harvey/Two-Face story in about 40 minutes (two episodes minus commercials) and did it just as well as The Dark Knight.

The framework for The Long Halloween was that a criminal was committing crimes on different holidays throughout the year, so that's why it took twelve months. Not because a lot of time was required to tell the Two-Face origin, which can be easily condensed (and often is in the comic books) without becoming any less effective.

I definitely feel it works as a complete movie. Even if somebody never saw Batman Begins, and there are no sequels to follow, TDK has all that exploration of what it means to be a hero and the tough choices and consequences involved, holding it together. It's basically a story about a city turning on the person who protects them. We don't necessarily need to know what happens next, just that Batman has made a big sacrifice.

I think it sets up the next movie a lot less shamelessly than something like The Empire Strikes Back (which I love anyway) or Back to the Future, while not being as allergic to continuity as the previous Batman franchise, where every movie was a little too separate in my opinion.

Bateman-like indeed. Especially in Batman Begins:
"I'm planning on buying this hotel and setting some new rules about the swimming area."

And I agree I think Christian Bale was excellent in getting all those different sides. The deep voice is corny but I think it works for Batman. He couldn't sound the same as Bruce Wayne and his voice greatly contrasted with the Joker's.

I also LOVE that moment with the Joker that you referenced in your post. The timing was PERFECT and it broke my heart a little every time people kept calling him crazy and a freak. My god, I wanna go watch it again right now.

yes but she's saying that the characters lack depth and development and they don't. They all had depth and good development. I was satisfied. I wasn't left "hungry" in any way, the movie had lots to offer.


And Batman's sacrifice was heroic.

Yeah, I hate all that. I think the actor's job is to make you see the character and not them. And all the Batman actors were able to do that, although the hype kind of meant that every so often I'd see the Joker as recognisably Heath and be a bit - I don't know - overcome is too strong a word, but I'd feel a bit "Woah, that's Heath Ledger and he's so good and he's not going to be in other films..." It's a weird situation, I guess.

__________________

^ lololol.

i have been putting off reading this thread until i saw the dark night, which i finally did last night.

i had fooled myself into thinking that the fact that it was ten pages long meant there was some engaging debate going on. to be fair, a lot of you had interesting things to say, it was just hard to pay attention when it was constantly being "countered" with whining and shrieking.

Yeah, we all know who to blame for that.