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?
Personally, I was Batmanned-out years ago. How many times can people go to see the same story over and over again?
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.
There’s no such thing as too long and too intense. It’s called depth of story and character development.
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!
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.”)
How many people have to be gutted, impaled, shot in the head and burned alive to get an "R" these days.
Despicable.
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.
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.
bookmark until see movie :)
The “Heat” comparisons crack me up. I watched the opening six minutes and in no way, shape or form does that bank robbery deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the “Heat” bank robbery.
I may see actually see the movie after the Ledger-worship subsides a bit. But there’s no way it can come close to living up to this insane hype.