Anxiety said:

Quick translation"

"adult" sensibility = Intelligent

"color and joy" = Gay or “camp” or fab-u-lous!

You like em dumb & gay(nothing wrong with it) like the old Batman TV show right?

Cool! gottcha
[Edited 7/22/08 20:58pm]

violetblues said:

oh my GOD.

look, you're right about everything in the history of the universe and really, just for the sake of argument, i'm randomly tapping at my keyboard with my feet. okay? just read that sentence over and over whenever you see me post and believe that in your reality, it is the truth. just LEAVE ME ALONE AND LET ME ENJOY MY DAMN ORG.

Anxiety said:

enjoy your org already, lol

YOU Respond to all my posts nutboy, I was just recipricating

go on about your daily nerd doings,
good god!

violetblues said:

if i didn't know any better, i'd be asking you if they finally installed WiFi service under bridges.

Anxiety said:

lol, yeah you would know wouldnt you

I really enjoyed the film. Heath Ledger was AMAZING. He lived up to all of the hype, if thats even possible. Aesthetically, it was brilliant. Chicago is the definitive Gotham City.


Gotham City

Tom said:

All I could think about when I saw his face was how damn uncomfortable that eye must be. How the hell did he keep it lubricated?!?! He had no eyelid!

for some reason, I read that as "drunk store"

I liked it but I enjoyed the first one a little bit more. Maybe it's because the first one offered something fresh and new in the look and feel of Batman. This one relies on the strength of the joker--the story doesn't feel like it's builds very well..it felt more like watching scenes on a story board play out.

And the transition from Harvey the crusador to 2-Face the vengeful crazydude seemed a bit rushed. Whoever that actor is though, to me, is absolutely hawt, so I didn't mind the scenes with him in it. Though they could have done a few shirtless scenes and shit--the missed an opportunity on that one.
And what's up with Christian Bale taking his shirt off only once, to reveal himself covered in scratches, burn marks, and bruises? Couldn't they do a few scenes of him shirtless? Pointless waste of a good actor really. Plus how come someone so rich like Bruce Wayne has a haircut you could easily get at Supercuts? Bitch, please.

And the realistic look-and-feel of the movie was great, but at times, the super hero 'feel' to the movie is lost and batman looks like he's playing "dressup" in your local downtown parking garage. The first scene where the dog bites him in the parking lot felt... I don't know---common and a bit dull. I know it's meant to feel real and gritty , but there were scenes where I swear to gawd, I tought it was the set of Hill Street Blues.

Oh, and the movie was a bit long. I thought for a minute Aragon was going to take the thrown and usher in the new age of man in middle earth a few times there.


Overall though, I really liked the movie. For some reason I preferred the first. I'll have to watch both again and figure out why. I *DO* love Heath's version of the joker though--brilliant.

Imago said:

I was a bit underwhelmed by the movie. I just finished watching "Batman Begins," to try to get a sense of what's missing. The first one was a bit more light-hearted. This is definitely darker and more operatic, but I think it took itself a little too seriously. I'm going to try to see it in IMAX tomorrow.

violetblues said:

ThreadBare said:

Bale's shirt was constantly off in the first movie.

This one had it off for all of 5 seconds to reveal scars, bruises, and burns.

Imago said:

Didn't notice. Maggie G's eyes, on the other hand, were captivating, as usual.

Imago said:

Exactly 100% correct!



YES..,the Harvey-Two Face transition felt like it was completely glossed over; like they just said "Let's get this over with so we have our other villain ASAP!"

As for the hawtness of Aaron Eckhart, !!! I am into chicks myself but he is a good-looking guy.



Whatever floats your boat! Seriously though, Christian Bale is quickly becoming one of my all-time favorite actors...dude is talented!



DEAD ON IT! That does it: Imago, you are on my Buddy List!







Heath was phenomenal and I'm so frustrated and sad that he's gone. Academy Award for Best Actor, anyone?

Finally saw it on IMAX yesterday.

No change.

It's OK. Just.

bluefish said:

He should get a nomination at the very least - really sensational perfoemance.

DiminutiveRocker said:

It's so frustrating to finally have someone do The Joker properly, then have them leave, never again to repeat the performance.

According to the voters over at IMDB.com, 'The Dark Knight' is the best movie ever made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

9.4/10 stars

FuNkeNsteiN said:

usually im bored from the start with any of these mainstream movies. But somehow I didnt feel like nodding off once through 2 and a half hours, which is an amazing feat for my short attention span.
I was totally less than thrilled with Maggie Gylenhaal, how on earth is such a dowdy looking girl Jakes's sister? Couldnt they have found someone else more up to par in the looks department?

meow85 said:

....

horatio said:

She's cute.

ThreadBare said:

She is not cute...sorry.

bluefish said:

T'is a very good film, imho.

I loved it!

I find it interesting though, arguing about whether realism has a place in a comic book movie. Comic book writers have been re-inventing these characters (and their plots) to make them either more real or relatable - or up the ante on the emotive response they evoke, for as long as these characters have been around.

I liked the themes & sub plots (defense contracts? cell-phone spying?) that underline the contemporary complications in defining a morality in good fighting evil. It's a film that raises questions, even if it doesn't answer them.

It is not a whimsical film, but the humor is there if you like the sadistic. It flows and advances nicely beyond Batman Begins; Ledger really delivered a Joker that fits in the 'new' Batman universe: a hysterical, terrifying, and terrorizing entity.

I saw it last night. I thought the Joker as played by the late Heath Ledger was GREAT.
I was a bit skeptical about all the rave reviews before going to the movie theather, thinking that the reviews were more positive because of this being his last movie, but this Joker IMO is more exciting than even Jack's Joker. I'm gonna see the '89 Batman soon to compare though, I haven't seen that one in a while.
Overall it was a very good movie.
Problems?
First off I thought Batman's voice was a bit "off" but that's a minor annoyance compared to the fact that the speakers for almost ALL the dialogue blew out in the middle of the movie so all the dialogue we heard was when someone was in the background and we heard just the bass frequencies of the main dialogue.
If it werent' for the subtitles the second half would have been COMPLETELY ruined. Luckily, after the screening all the people in the theatre were offered to go to the film again for free AND another film of choice for free as well. So I guess I'll be seeing the film again soon.

bluefish said:

Hey Chris, I read your posts AND your review and couldn´t disagree more.
That realism is the MAIN reason why I liked TDK so much. I guess the thing is that you , as you have expressed in your blog, tend to favor Tim Burton´s version of Batman over this one, and that´s fine but, and I´m sure real Batman fans will agree with me on this, any true , oldschool fan of the Batman of the mid 1970s to early 80s will tell you that The Dark Knight and Batman Begins were the best interpretations of Neal Adam´s version of Batman.
Jack Nicholson´s Joker was kinda ok, it was like Nicholson playing Nicholson one more time, and Keaton as Bruce Wayne or Batman was simply not convincing enough, he´s neither got the looks nor the darkness to pull it off but if one wants that camp aspect, than of course Burton´s Batman is the real deal, for those interested in that kind of genre.

Chris Nolan did a great job in giving these two movies that special Neal Adams/Frank Miller feel, he just updated it a bit and adapted it to the 21st century.
So, all in all, you are quite on point when you say that TDK lacks that campy feel and takes itself too seriously but then again, fans like me have been waiting for ages to see this kind of Batman interpretation. Believe me , it is VERY close to legendary Batman stories like "The Lazarus Pit" or " A Death In The Family"...not necessarily the storyline but the overall atmosphere of the movies.
I really liked this movie and will definitely watch it again tomorrow and can´t wait for a third installment.
Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox was incredible, and Michael Caine as Alfred was superb,though he doesn´t really look like Alfred ( and the "real" Alfred would say "Master Bruce"instead of "Master Wayne" and he would serve tea, not coffee but....all in all....this is one of the best superhero movies ever made.

And the Wayne penthouse...wow....couldn´t get any closer to the "Neal Adams Batman" than this...just wow !

If only Chris Nolan could bring back Ras Al Ghul and include his daughter Talia Al Ghul ( Bruce Wayne´s girlfriend ) in the next one.
That would be a dream come true. And they should emphasize more on the athleticism of Bruce Wayne, like in the first one, and less on the almost robot-like Batman suit which looked a bit too heavy.

PS: I do agree with you about the explosions for explosion´s sake though.

Although of course bringing back Ras Al Ghul would go totally against the realism of the Nolan movies.

calldapplwondery83 said:

Hoow so ? Ras didn´t die in Batman Begins, and he was one of the main villains in the Batman interpretations of Dennis O´Neill and Neal Adams. Bringing him back in the third movie and introducing his daughter Talia ( Bruce Wayne´s girlfriend ) would be cool.The could loosely base the scenario on "The Lazarus Pit" but without Robin.