After careful consideration, The Dark Knight wasn't all that...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 21:46
VIEWED: 6441
PAGE 2 of 7
While I think that the Dark Knight was better than the Fantastic Four, I do agree that Dent really should have gotten his own movie. As it was, Two Face was tacked on. Joker owns this movie, and he was the only villain needed.
Joker visiting Dent in the hospital wasn't convincing enough to me for Dent to fall from the precipice the movie was hinting he was at. It was a nice showdown at the end between Batman, Twoface, and Gordon's family, but it wasn't necessary and really was a bit rushed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Does anyone here truly believe DK was better than BB?????
"As a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."
Oh, and now he can't be, but Dent CAN??? Can you say plot device?
Except that was the problem - he didn't want to be the symbol, he wanted to pass the mantle of it onto someone else. When he started being Batman, an honest politician wouldn't have stood a chance (qv Rachel's boss) but now someone like Dent could stand in the light and be a better symbol than Batman - a white knight. Of course when they started shooting, you may have been able to scoff at the idea of a politician (a politician!) being a symbol of hope and change, generating huge personal loyalty from ordinary members of the public but (thankfully) events this year have proven otherwise.
And if we're going toe to toe with Batman Begins (which I loved but is definitely inferior to TDK), then let's talk overkill with villains. We have Joe Chill, the thug who created Batman. We have Carmine Falcone. We have Dr Crane/Scarecrow. We have Ra's Al Ghul. That's four iconic Batman villains. TDK has the Joker and Two Face (yes, and a tiny cameo by Crane). It's Begins that has too many villains, not The Dark Knight.
Of course, what may be recorded as the film's greatest achievement is having a central character that one of cinema's finest ever actors portrayed less than 20 years ago, in a performance that was described as definitive for both himself and the character. People braced themselves for either a Nicholson imitation or something half-hearted and instead Ledger blew us all away. Even if he hadn't died, his Joker would have caused the same stir, it was such a wonderful redefinition.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Am I the only one on the planet that is less than impressed with Ms. Gyllenhal and thought that Harvey Dent (as played by Mr Eckart) was a nacissistic son of a bitch?
................I take that as a yes 
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
Trolls Against McCain
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seen it twice now, and I gotta say they did the Spidey 3 thing and shoehorned an extra villain in where he wasn't needed (2face), they gave us a somber Joker (The Joker is supposed to be having FUN at what he does!), and an actor that was *channeling* the darker bits of Brandon Lee's Crow to boot. They tossed Rachael's character out with the trash, and wasted Dent, who should have had his own movie. Nice photography, music & set pieces though.
I agree with you. The pacing is way off in the film. The last 45 minutes of it feel odd, and make it seem overly long. I could care less about Two Face than any villain in super hero movie history. Ledger did a good job as the Joker. Two Face ruined what could have been a great movie.
For my money, I'll stick with the 1989 version. Jack Nicholson=the Joker
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please define "us all".
Originally posted by SimonWho:
instead Ledger blew us all away.
Personally, Nicholson WAS the Joker, movie-wise.
To tell the truth, I would have cast Mark Hamill, his joker was GREAT on the cartoon, and yes, I did just suggest that.
The Trickster-like Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*raises hand*
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Am I the only one on the planet that is less than impressed with Ms. Gyllenhal
The agreeing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now we're talkin' the first FF...okay, I'll agree TDK is a 'better film' technically, but FF was flat out more ENJOYABLE to ME!
Originally posted by Bytemite:
While I think that the Dark Knight was better than the Fantastic Four
The so-there Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Please define "us all".
Originally posted by SimonWho:
instead Ledger blew us all away.
Personally, Nicholson WAS the Joker, movie-wise.
To tell the truth, I would have cast Mark Hamill, his joker was GREAT on the cartoon, and yes, I did just suggest that.
The Trickster-like Chrisisall
Heath certainly blew me away. I absolutely could not see any of the man Heath in that portrayal. Nicholsons Joker was Nicholson in a purplr suit and makeup. Not saying thats a bad thing....
JustsayinIsAll
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
Trolls Against McCain
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hamill would have blown both other performances away. And yes I just did say that.
The serious Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic... Ah, what the heck, I'll laugh anyway - Hahahahahahaha!"
See, I love Batman (1989), Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and the Animated Series. I love Nicholson, Ledger and Hamill. We should just count ourselves lucky to have three wonderful versions of such a brilliant character in such a short space of time. But Hamill is a voice actor - he just doesn't have the physicality needed for the role. Sure, he can punch former drug dealers in the crotch but he's 57 - 5 years older than Nicholson was when he did Batman.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME