The Dark Knight (SPOILERS)

[The Dark Knight]

TDK is almost to 300M...Box Office Mojo reports that it is at $238M in 7 days, it still has 6 more to beat the last record for fastest to 300 million.

[Fortis]

Well...its time to add my take on this movie..........I love villains, I love deep and complex characters. Its what makes me like some movies other people don't like. Lady in the water for instance, I like it becuase of its characters.

But....they accomplished the impossible here. You see, there are special criteria for a villain to be good and interesting. Here are a few of the options...

misunderstood - used way too much, but can make for some good villains (Voldemort)

able to be redeemed - the villains that in spite of their evil...can still make the right choice (Darth Vader)

Godlike power - These sorts of villains usually don't have a view point and we don't usually see them, but we know how powerful they can be (Sauron)

Downright Evil - Have such hate and rage that they go after the hero relentlessly...these are usually pretty 2D characters (Ganon)


And then...we have the villain that Joker is. This kind of villain is never done...because its very hard to write a villain like the Joker. It is very hard to write a villain that has NO motivation, none whatsoever. Usually these villains are boring, because everyone needs to usually have the motivation. Unless the audience hates the villain, which makes things interesting, but again, this doesn't work if we hate the villain so much we can't stand to see them on screen.

But they accomplished every writers dream of the perfect villain. A force of nature, one that has no rules, no motivation, one that you hate so much, but is so interesting you crave to see more of it. A villain that makes a hero almost become a villain himself to defeat him.

Guys...I've been trying to write a villain like this in one of my books...and its extremely hard, I mean, incredibly hard. I don't think I have the skill to do it, but I was in awe at what the Nolan brothers were able to write, and what Heath Ledger was able to portray. I was giddy as a school boy to see the villain I've always wanted to create, on screen...(though after watching this...I realized that my villain just isn't as interesting as the Joker...oh well. I'll think of something)


Also, everybody's performances were great, especially Christian Bale and Heath Ledger. They were simply incredible. Gary Oldman and Micheal Caine are always fun to watch, and the soundtrack was also great. I love James Newton Howard, and even though I don't really like Hanz Zimmer...his contribution mixed well with James Newton Howards.

All in all, I give this movie a ten out of ten, for making a writer almost piss his pants in glee.

^^?

This the one, scamp?

Yes what about it? I told you that this review was me saying the writing was great, not saying exactly what i read in other movie reviews.

[daltysmilth]

The cell phone was more of a political statement rather than a neat device, which is why I was able to suspend my disbelief for that one because it did raise a few interesting questions. 

I think you're reading too much into it.  I mean, why would they make a political statement in a Batman movie?  While there's definitely political satire in the comics (see the Dark Knight Returns), I don't think they'd want to use a Batman movie to make a political statement, because you risk alienating half the potential audience that way. 

I never saw the cell phone thing as a political statement, beyond the obvious "no one person should have too much power, and the people who are most qualified to wield great power are often the ones who are most reluctant to use it."  But that's nothing that's not been said in other movies.  And even if it was the most profound political statement ever made, the way they made it was poorly executed.  It doesn't appear until close to the end of act two, and there's some brief dialogue about how no one should have this much power, Lucius Fox announces his plan to resign, and then there really isn't any follow-up. 

True, the same premise has been used in other movies, but it's never been as relevant as it has been now thanks to Dubyah and hs "Patriot Act".

So, I must admit, that I did have a good laugh when Morgan Freeman didn't want anything to do with it in the film.

Hell, at least Nolan is smart enough to do away with the whole thing towards the end.  That in itself is a statement.

I think anyone who sees anything in this movie as an intentional criticism of contemporary politics is probably going to see it whether it exists or not. 

The people who made this film live in America for the most part, and are part of our society.  It only makes sense that they would be influenced by current events.  And when you are a writer it's always fun to put little bits of meaning into your films. 

Batman broke the law and used cellphones to spy on everyone in the US in order to catch a terrorist.  I really don't see how you can deny that as an intentional reference to the patriot act.  Though the comment the film made on the patriot act was an interesting one.  It seemed to say that sometimes it is necessary to violate people's privacy to protect them. 

Then again, you could also look at the film and say that it didn't end up working too well.  When he had the cellphone vision on it seemed to hurt him more than help because there was just too much information to look at.  So Nolan left it up for interpretation.  But I'm positive that it's a reference to wiretapping.  And I don't see why you are so against the possibility that Nolan would want to put a little politics in his film.

I'm not against the idea.  I'm just saying that it wouldn't make sense.  Lots of people from both sides of the political spectrum are Batman fans.  And if you put a political statement into a film that's part of a franchise that is so universally beloved, specifically a statement that seems to favor one side of the spectrum over the other, you're going to risk alienating all the people who feel differently.  Especially because it's hard to make a political statement without getting too preachy.  If this were an original movie, featuring original characters who have nothing to do with any pre-existing franchises, then it wouldn't matter what political statements Nolan wanted to make.  He could say that owning firearms should not only be legal, but mandatory, or that we should give apes the vote, or whatever.  Again, yes, the Batman comics have made references to contemporary (or contemporary for the time in which they were written) references to politics, but contemporary politics, especially those on a national level, have never been as important in the Batman universe as the politics of Gotham City.  I will grant you that the overall theme of the movie could seem to be a political question as much as a philosophical one, namely escalation.  And the question it raises has far-reaching implications, namely "Does escalating your response to an enemy ultimately make you worse than that enemy, and if so, at what point does it happen?"

[Thom_Serveaux]

this thread is getting almost as dark as the movie itself...

Let's take a break:

Everybody's going to see it....

Time-Travelers (:55)
Aliens (from the planet Kamen Rider (1:24)
Santa Claus (1:40)
Jesus (1:54)

JC: "My children, i have come back to you.  The sheer awesomeness of TDK has brought about my second coming, and with it the Rapture.  Which will begin immediately...

...after the 7:45 showing, I gotta see this bad boy..."

IM: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[Variety of Cells]

You're right.  Taking one side on political issue in a movie like this might bother some people.  But I don't think he took one side.  He presented the situation in a different context, just to give people something to think about.  He didn't say whether it was right or wrong.  He raised a question, as you said.  And I think he did a pretty decent job with it.

[anais.jude]

Bobo, that was beautiful! Thank you!

[Thom_Serveaux]

I especially enjoyed the cameo of my Savior... (see above) or the previous page...

[YoohooRiffer]

I saw this last knight and really enjoyed it.  I do have two questions though, and I'm sorry if they've already been answered but I don't have the time to go back and read the first 50 pages of this thread.

1.  At the very beginning what was the Scarecrow and the fake Batmans doing?  Had they turned good?  Later we see the one fake batman is killed by the Joker and the tape reveals that he wore the batman costume to prove you didn't have to be afraid of scum.  Also Batman tells them that he doesn't need their help.  So has the scarecrow and his gang changed?  His whole inclusion in this film confused me.

2.  Do we think Coleman Reese is going to become a main character in the next film?  He knows Batman's identity so I doubt he will just disappear.  I think he's going to become Robin.  (Not really but it would be funny)

[Thom_Serveaux]

1.) I think the scarecrow was as fake as the batmans, sort of like 'the sons of the bat' in the Dark Knight miniseries back in the day...

2.) Not sure, maybe..

On a somewhat tangential note, due to TDK Cartoon Network is looking to cash in w/ a showing of "Batman Beyond: The Return Of The Joker"  It will more than likely be the edited version, though.  It airs at 5:30 tonight.

[Nick]

1. I don't think the fake Batmans were with Scarecrow, they were there to stop the drug deal by both sides.  

2. Hopefully Robin doesn't show up at all, I find him lame IMO.

[Junkyard]

They pretty much pounded the point that Barbara Gordon won't be becoming Batgirl anytime soon into our heads during this film as well. Which is probably a good thing.

[daltysmilth]

Well, maybe I just don't think everyone feels the need to make a political statement in everything, and I don't feel the need to look for political statements in every movie I see.  Sometimes I just want to enjoy movies for what they are on the surface, and not think too hard about the "deeper meaning" of every line of dialogue or every image.  My point is that you can find anything you want to in a movie if you look hard enough.  Take of a movie like "Shaun of the Dead".  You could say it comments on how fickle people are, and how easily people abandon their moral standards when faced with adversity, and how stubbornly we revert to the status quo once an adverse situation is under control, or you could say it's just a really funny and all-around well-crafted zombie movie.  Which one is closer to how its creators intended it?  My money is that it's probably closer to the second one than the first.  But that's just my opinion.

[daltysmilth]

My brother Matt and my uncle Terrence pointed this out, that really, if you think about it, Coleman Reese didn't actually have any evidence that Bruce Wayne actually is Batman until Fox all but confirms it.  All he knows for sure, and all that he could prove is that Wayne Enterprises designed the Batmobile.  Fox could have claimed that the prototype was stolen, or sold off, or that it was given to Batman by Bruce Wayne, or something like that.  Instead, he just went the route of saying "Okay, you got me.  My boss is Batman.  But if you tell anyone, Batman will come and beat the shit out of you.  So keep your mouth shut, got it?"

[Junkyard]

Ugh, but if he HAD gone the evasive route? First: Lame. Second: It would be the one lie that starts a huge, dangerous web of lies.

[Dim of the Yard]

It didn't sound to me like Fox proved or disproved Reese, actually.  I doubt that even if Fox had been quick on his feet and come up with a reasonable answer as to the missing funds, he still wouldn't have been able to convince Reese that Wayne wasn't Batman.  Fox simply questioned if Reese thought blackmailing somebody whom he thought was the infamous masked man who took out criminals his own way and didn't answer to any kinds of authority, was a very smart thing to do.  He neither confirmed nor denied Reese's claims; he just undermined him, which was probably the best possible way to deal with Reese.