lol. I'll probably see it a third time but I'm not sure.

But I'll surely buy the dvd.

I just read a theory on some board that the accountant guy who discovers Batman's secret identity is possibly going to become the Riddler.

Mostly because his name is Mr. Reese which = mysteries. And he knows who Batman is, so he might sell clues to criminals in the form of riddles or something.

Probably quite a stretch, but I sort of hope it's true. I thought he was kind of hot (he looked a little like a less handsome Heath Ledger actually) and really don't like the idea of Johnny Depp being cast.

mmmmmmm that's interesting but unlikely I think.

I also dislike the Johnny Depp rumors because that's exactly what the did on the former batman films, they would cast a-listers to showcase them instead of I guess taking the characters more seriously.

i agree the more i think about it.

they might have gave the character that name as a red herring, or maybe it's completely coincidental. but i don't see him actually becoming the riddler.

i sort of feel bad for the whoever is cast as the villain in the next film, because their performance is automatically going to be compared to heath ledger's. although i felt for heath ledger initially too, figuring his performance would be compared unfavorably to jack nicholson's. which shows what i know.

i hope they cast lindsay lohan as catwoman or something. some tragic meth whore who turns catwomans cunt into her most potent weapon.

lol. Well there are rumours going around that Angelina Jolie will be Catwoman and Phillip Seymor Hoffman(double ) is going to be the new Penguin.

But I know that we are not even close to who the next villain will be.

I just watched Batman Begins. I recently bought it and haven't seen it since the time I saw it in the theater and I must say it has aged well, it's still a good film.

I even teared up at scenes, the ones involving Bruce and the issues with his parents. I don't know why Batman moves me so much, this may sound corny but he is like this ideal, just like the movie implies. I don't know if I'm reading too much into it but he is an ideal to me also, even if it's just a comic book, it's like he's such a great person, I wish I could be half like that.

He is incredibly noble, just the sacrifice he makes, that he doesn't have to but he still does it.

My only complaint about the movie is the final battle. I dislike it because it's the general run of the mill ending to any action/superhero movie with the bombs and the explosions and the destruction of the city. I can't imagine any other way to end the movie but it's still generic run of the mill situation.

And that is one more reason why I LOVE The Dark Knight so much, because it went the opposite route. In the ending, the explosions and the wars and the destruction happen in the PSYCHE of the characters rather than outside of it and that is always going to be infinetely more compelling and powerful than your run of the mill action sequences.

Angelina would be the SEXIEST Catwoman. She's perfect for it. ...Hopefully she'd gain a BIT of weight first because seeing how thin she was in Wanted disturbed me a bit.

Batman film: Morally corrupt, or teaching valuable lessons?

For many years, Marc Newman used a simple test when asking college students if they thought some actions were always right and others were always wrong — slavery.

Then something strange happened in his philosophy of communication classes. Students began arguing that slavery might be acceptable in certain cultures and under certain conditions. Besides, who were they to judge others?

So here's a new question. What if you had two ferries and each contained a bomb. One ferry is full of criminals, while the other contains ordinary citizens and — there's a catch — each contains a remote control that can trigger the other boat's bomb. Then there is this sick Joker who vows that he will destroy both, if one doesn't destroy the other.

Wouldn't it be moral for the good guys to destroy the bad guys?

This is, of course, a soul-wrenching scene in "The Dark Knight," the Batman sequel that is soaring toward the $500 million mark at the U.S. box office.


"The audience is torn between these two choices and that's the point," said Newman, who teaches courses on the rhetoric of film at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. "You want to see good triumph over evil, somehow. But just look how far these movies have to ratchet up the nature of these violent acts so that the whole audience can agree that they're evil."

Newman believes that one reason that consumers are paying to see this dark, distressing movie is that they are drawn to its depiction of a culture in which violence has become senseless, random and all but unstoppable.

In one nihilistic sermon, the villain with a death-mask smirk tells the powers that be, "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I am a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things." Later, he proclaims: "Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair."

This note of despair fits the times. Thus, the movie strikes a chord.

"We see in 'The Dark Knight' as a fictional expression of our own world gone mad," argues Newman, at his MovieMinistry.com Web site. "Under interrogation, The Joker rejects the idea that his is some alien ideology. Providing his analysis of the bastions of rules and laws — the police department — The Joker explains, 'You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster ... I'm just ahead of the curve.' "

The question religious believers have to ask, he said, is "whether the Joker is right."

Newman is not alone in hailing "The Dark Knight" as a must-see epic for clergy and others who want to keep their fingers on the cultural pulse. But there are strong voices of dissent.

"No movie I've ever seen has been so emotionally disturbing and spiritually oppressive," warned Brian Fitzpatrick of Human Events. While some claim that the movie's tale of good and evil contains essentially "conservative" values, he argued that it "showcases violence, betrayal and sadism in the name of frivolous entertainment. The movie is morally corrupt."

The key to this tension, noted Newman, is that "The Dark Knight" leaves viewers yearning for its anti-hero — Batman is aware of his own flaws and mixed motives — to find a way to remain true to his personal vow to defend the innocent, even if that means bending society's rules.

As this movie lurches to its conclusion, it becomes clear that the Joker has only one goal and that is to strip Batman of his moral convictions, to shatter his belief that good can defeat evil without being corrupted.

This implies that some kind of moral absolutes do exist.
`
[ B ]"But we are left," Newman added, "with an important question: Where does Batman get his convictions about what is right and what is wrong? He has a moral vision, but where did it come from? That isn't in the movie. There are no answers there."[ /b ]



Everyone knows his morals come from the death of his parents and his experiences in Batman Begins MOTHAFUCKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucking idiot.


I personally think the movie gives great moral lessons. I came away feeling that we should all strive to do the right thing always, that should be our mantra.

At the end the Joker fails in his purpose and Batman wins, of course he's lost so much but at the end he stuck to his ideals and morals. He wouldn't be albe to do anything else either way.

I've seen it a couple of days ago. It didn't impress me much. I liked Gary Oldman though.

it went over your head

You can't just show up and let your costume and troutish dick sucking lips do all the work, which is exactly what Angelina Jolie would do.

She's such a banal looking rubber doll and Catwoman should be more than that. Julie Newmar and Michelle Pfeiffer were both pretty bad-ass, and weren't just relying on being beautiful women. Which is all Angelina has going for her. Maybe she can cameo as one of those vapid skanks Bruce Wayne cavorts around with to give off the illusion of being a playboy. And then Catwoman can be all edgy in contrast and possibly beat the shit out of her.

Bruce can be out on the town, his self-involved bimbo companions (Angelina Jolie & Halle Berry) will excuse themselves to go purge and then Selina Kyle can show up, mock Bruce's decidedly shit taste in women and then leave him with a raging hardon.

Amen. Angelina sucks so bad as an actress.

I thought she was great in A Mighty Heart.

You make me laugh and you are so right!

I loved Batman Begins and TDK but seriously, if they pick Angelina I might have to skip the next one.

Michelle Pfeiffer is still hot let her do it again.. Only joking. I really can't think of anyone fit for the role right now.

well i finally saw it, and yeah i did not think it was that great. i mean heath ledger was pretty amazing, like, i did not know he could act like that...but at the same time he was totally impersonating jack nicholson. i mean, that VOICE. it was SO nicholson. and maybe that was the only nicholson aspect. but it was very obvious to me.

so yeah. i still prefer the burton films by far. i think i like them better because they're not so huge on the action scenes, and by that i mean like all the stuff with shooting and explosions etc. blah.

anyway. i'm not really sure what i was expecting out of this movie. oh well, at least it only cost $7.50.

I haven't seen "the dark knight" yet so nothing about that.....

But I always kinda liked the storyline where Joker killed Wayne's parents. That's all.

well you obviously stayed in the surface of the movie. huge on the action scenes?? first of all the action scenes in the dark knight are brilliantly executed and they are not the core of the story, there is depth there and some really poignant, deep and dramatic scenes like the final exchange between batman, two face and gordon. Burton's films had nothing of the sort.

and a MASSIVE LOL at Heath impersonating Jack Hicholson as you say. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING of Jack Nicholson in Heath Ledger's performance, and THANK GODNESS for that.

Heath just took that character and made it his own and captured it in the way nicholson and burton could not.

And the voice was so spot on, that kinda whiny I don't know how to describe it voice, it was creepy and it was the Joker's voice, he found his voice. Jack Nicholson was just talking like jack nicholson in batman. In fact he was just jack nicholson dressed as a clown, and I love jack but Heath WAS the Joker. You totally forget it's even Heath Ledger.

I think it bothers people. Even though the burton films and the new films are incredibly different and it's hard to compare them, they