It's anti-Dark Knight.
Posted on 07/21/2008 10:11:59 AM PDT by Cpl. Dwayne Hicks
Ok, after all the hype and reviews, I went to see Dark Knight yesterday. I go to the movies to be entertained and, like Ghoshbusters, I'm probably the only person out there who wasn't as entertained as all the hype suggested.
The movie was too long and too intense. Too much needless violence. The movie should have ended when Two-Faced was revealed (and the coin flip thing grew old pretty quickly) but instead it went on for another 30 or 40 minutes.
Bottom line, the Jason Bourne flicks still out do this one.
Share your thoughts if you've seen the movie.
Two things:
1.) They will NEVER find a replacement for Heath Ledger, who displayed one of the best acting performances I’ve seen in a very, very long time. His representation of what the Joker should be was absolutely fantastic, and although he was a typical Hollywood lib who wasted his talent on drugs, I do mourn for his death based on his irreplaceable performance and his children.
2.) Two-Faced should not have died. If you guys correctly remember the cartoon, Two-Faced lasted for dozens of Batman: The Cartoon seasons, not just one. He should be resurrected immediately.
Ghoshbusters? Is that a Ghostbusters parody of some sort?
I was amazed at how well Ledger played the joker part. Brilliant!
Personally, I was Batmanned-out years ago. How many times can people go to see the same story over and over again?
I did not think Ledger’s performance could possibly live up to the hype, but it did, for me at least. For the first 30-40 minutes I was bored if the Joker wasn’t on screen.
But what was with Christian Bale’s Batman voice?? He sounded like The Cookie Monster! “I’m in disguise, so I will use this very fake gravely voice.” We had a good laugh about it on the way home.
That may have actually been a better movie!
I thought it was AWESOME, gets one of my very rare 5-star ratings.
Yes, I still love the Bourne movies, too. :-)
MM
Let’s just say a friend of mine came in contact with a copy of this movie. I stopped watching after about 40 minutes because I was bored. OVER-RATED!
Let’s just say a friend of mine came in contact with a copy of this movie. I stopped watching after about 40 minutes because I was bored. OVER-RATED!
And yes, the Bourne Trilogy is way more entertaining.
I haven’t seen The Dark Knight yet but watched Batman Returns over the weekend. I noticed the cheesy gravelly voice that Christian Bale used also - didn’t know if it was to disguise his voice, or that he was really angry that he had to wear that heavy batsuit.
There’s no such thing as too long and too intense. It’s called depth of story and character development.
Probably because he had to pee real bad and Morgan Freeman didn’t put in a porta-potty in the suit.
It’s called overkill.
It's anti-Dark Knight.
Only if you have an MTV attention span.
I saw it on Saturday. I thought it was very, very good. But not the artistic and cinematic masterpiece people are raving about.
There’s nothing I would have changed, exactly - it’s just that my overall “thrill” level may just no go up as far as other people’s with this kind of film. I didn’t see exactly why it got all the raves it did. I will agree with you that it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype.
Maybe I missed something. I would recommend the movie as great summertime entertainment. But an all-time classic? I dunno. I liked the 1989 Batman also.
I might see it again, with a friend who has not seen it. Plus, I may get more out of it this time, which often happens for me on second viewings. So they get my money twice!
He was good. Could never figure out why he never bled when Batman pummelled his face while he was in the holding cell. Maybe that would have crossed the violence line. Sure, show six cops being killed but don’t bloody the Joker’s face.
Thanks for the SPOILER.
Nope, haven't seen it yet.
The script was much better than average for a superhero movie (Alfred: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”)
They left Harvey’s condition vague enough that in the next flick they can say that his death was faked and he was whisked away for treatment under the most secretive of circumstances.
If you also read the comics, Harvey was cured for a while(after some reconstructive surgery) and even took over for Batman for a year while Bruce was on retreat with Dick and Tim. But the status quo being what it is, Harvey ended up going nuts again and scarred his own face to again become Two Face.
How many people have to be gutted, impaled, shot in the head and burned alive to get an "R" these days.
Despicable.
LOL! Hey RK!! good to see you!
I agree about the voice. Here's my comments on the film that I posted on another forum.
"I saw The Dark Knight. It was really good. Heath Ledger really would deserve an Oscar nom if he gets one. Absolutely certifiable take on The Joker. Creepy and fantastic. In fact, all the acting in this movie is excellent. I don't know that I'd have picked Maggie Gylenhall to play Rachel, but it works. The only annoyance is I didn't like Christian Bale's voice when he was Batman. A little to overdone with the growl-like thing and it took me out of the movie at times."
I liked it, but it seemed a bit disjointed at times. Poor editing perhaps? Maybe they tried to do too much, even at 2 1/2 hours. The Joker definitely stole the show. He got to monologue quite a lot!
I thought it was good, and quite complex for a hollywood piece. But high expections kind of ruined it for me.
Also, I think most people not familiar with the Batman story would have been quite confused at times.
I agree it was borderline R. More of a PG-16 movie.
I agree it should have had an R rating. If fact, I thought it did.
And the scene with the little boy was disturbing as well. As a parent, it’s like a gut punch and I sat with clenched fists and a wincing face.
However, it went along with the storyline and though it bothered me, I thought there was maybe a certain realism to that. In the real word, a true evil criminal or even those driven to atrocities by whatever means wouldn’t hesitate to harm a child no matter how disgusting that is.
Perhaps, anyone else who finds that too much to handle ought to sit this one out.
Do you perhaps mean Batman Begins?
Regards,
3 hours of pure hell.
I prefer the new movies because they more represent the true story of batman and how dark and violent the story and the villians really are.
I enjoy the lack of casting A-list hollywood actors just for hype-sake and the over acting that occured.
The earlier ones were showcases for the actors, costumes that looked like holloween party material, Tim Burton living out his gothic & art-deco fetishes. The last two looked like cheap porno movies. The whole story took a backseat to the actors camping it up for the camera.
Enjoyed the dark knight very much. Very true to the spirit of the comics.
Loved it. Worth the hype.
I think it got the PG-13 because most of the nasty stuff happened off camera. You know it happened but they didn’t show it, generally the ratings are more about what’s shown than what’s known to the audience.
Add to that the fact that the ratings board is notoriously fickle and frankly the whole system should be tossed.
you guys should put “spolier alerts” and realize that people read these threads before seeing the film before you give away a major part of the ending.
Did you like the scenes in the elevator?
You are correct...Batman Begins.
there was no elevator scene
you doofus
Hey there!! Hope you’re having a great summer!
ITA with every thing you said. There were a couple of other little things, like why did the mayor have so much eyeliner on?
It was hard for me to separate Chicago from Gotham City, especially since all the cars had IL plates. Like when they took the ferry (that left from Navy Pier, wth?), I kept thinking, “Where are they taking the ferry? Winnetka? Gary, IN?”
It sounds like I hated it. LOL I swear I liked it. One of the creepiest movie moments ever was when The Joker was filming the video of the captured impostor Batman.
Yes, that was a little odd.
“It’s called depth of story and character development.”
But this film had paper thin characters and clothesline masqerading for a narrative.
“Sure, show six cops being killed but don’t bloody the Joker’s face.”
Didn’t see blood when the cops were killed, or when any of the other bad guys died. Lots of violence, but bloodless violence.
I give it a 4.
I think they did a pretty good job of not putting things in that were too, too recognizable as Chicago. I don’t remember any big skyline scenes or anything. But they do use Lower Wacker (”Lower 5th” in the movie) and you can see Marina Towers next to the mayors office (if you can stop staring at his eyeliner).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.