Posted on 07/21/2008 10:11:59 AM PDT by Cpl. Dwayne Hicks
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?
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.