Batman : The Dark knight

[RobinSena]

Many girls here on CAA are far better looking than Maggie Gyllenhal (I'm not being a stalker type I'm just telling it like it is). But I think you can do far worse than Maggie (personally I find her attractive). She also has some brains and a great personality (unlike many other girls in the industry).
But currently I'm obsessed with Felicia Day (Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, and The Guild). lol

Ah, The Guild. Awesome series.

Back on topic, as much as I'd love to see TDK again in theaters, I'm too broke.(Feel free to send me free money. XD) But I'll probably get it on DVD as soon as it's out.

[WrestlingOtaku]

Yeah, this is defiantly a pick up the day it releases on DVD for me, along with Iron Man.

[uc pseudonym]

So I intend to see this regardless, but I am trying to decide if I want to see it with a certain friend. He's has some issues in his past that make him uncomfortable with certain kinds of violence or gore. Right now he's curious about the level of violence in detail, as in what specific things happen. Can those of you who have seen it give me some information?

[animewarrior]

BATMAN FTW!!!
I NEED TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!

UC, pluggedinonline has a good violence rater if you like that resource... I know some ppl don't like it but I find it helpful so:

http://www.pluggedinonline.com

((ps - for those who don't know pluggedin is a Focus on the Family resource that reviews CDs, Movies, TV shows and some video games... all from a Christian perspective))

[ShiroiHikari]

Well, would it help to know that there's practically no blood and that most of the violence is implied? The most gruesome thing in it is Two-Face.

Also! I hope you haven't looked at it already, UC, but don't read Plugged In's TDK review unless you want major spoilers!

[uc pseudonym]

Ah, thanks for the quick response. I guess the question now is if the "Violent Content" section of the PluggedIn review (don't worry, I didn't look at the rest) misses or misconstrues anything particularly gruesome.

Well, would it help to know that there's practically no blood and that most of the violence is implied?

For this person it doesn't matter. If it implies that the Joker impales someone's face with a pencil, he'll be able to see it mentally.

[Radical Dreamer]

For this person it doesn't matter. If it implies that the Joker impales someone's face with a pencil, he'll be able to see it mentally.

If it helps, that scene happens so fast that you almost don't know what hit you. XD Or him, rather. Nothing is shown afterward, and as Shiroi said, the "goriest" thing was Two Face's character design. If he's really sensitive to even implied violence though, he may want to give it a second thought. The implied violence is still pretty disturbing in some cases (i.e., the idea of three men fighting to the death with a broken pool stick, one character holding a knife inside another's mouth, etc.), but I didn't find any of it unbearable. Then again, violence is the thing that bothers me the least, so you may want to let him know about these things and have him decide for himself.

I would disagree though, with Plugged-In's "not really PG-13" rating--it's intense, and it is violent, but not enough to garner an R, especially with the lack of visible gore. I guess it just depends on what each person can handle, though, and again, it'd be best to let your friend know about X-amount of scenes and let him decide for himself. XD

[Maledicte]

It's intense violence, but not graphic, if that makes sense. Like the pencil scene (which has been spoiled kinda, but it happens so fast that you don't even see the wound, you just see that the pencil is gone. It made everyone jump though, so it does have an effect on the audience watching. And there is a bit that looks very much like hostage videos you'd see in the news.

The most visible gore is Two-Face's face, some rather gruesome stitching on a man's stomach, and some of Batman's wounds. (and some dead people lying or hanging around. No blood though.)

[jon_jinn]

i'm finally going to go watch the movie tonight! i'm very hyped up for it!

[CrimsonRyu17]

I saw it yesterday afternoon. It was a greeaat movie.

My only complaints are that I think there was a little too much hype around it though. That and it felt like there was too much going on at once that everything was everywhere with everyone. Yeah, sometimes.

And hey, I actually liked the Joker as a character. That's liek, the first time evar, lawl.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Dark, grim, intense and deeply psychological - this movie is appropriate only for older teens and up. It takes Batman back to his darker roots. Every minute was amazing, this is cinema as it was meant to be - a thrill ride. Heath Ledger is excellent as the Joker, Aaron Eckart exemplary as Harvey Dent, Gary Oldman brilliant as Lieutenant Gordon, Morgan Freeman and Christian Bale once again - amazing. In-fact every actor and actress in this is great. The story builds nicely from Batman Begins. If you're ready for a bleak, messed up, but high-quality movie, hop aboard!
Why so serious?
10/10

I very rarely give a movie a 10/10. I think Pan's Labyrinth is the only other.
Excellent, excellent movie. But very intense.

It's amazing how little violence was shown but how well the audience still 'felt' it. Look no pencil (yowsers!)
Also the Joker and his crew were very creepy because their activities were like real-world terrorists but they had no weakness as such.
The incredibly dark tone probably warrants an R rating in the US and even maybe an MA15+ in Australia. It was pretty flippin' dark.

[Suzysaver]

Amazing movie!!! seriously it was. I went to the midnight release (with my face painted as the joker!! XD) and i'm gonna see it again tomorrow. Everything about it was soooo good. Everything was just right. 10 out of 10 (and that is rare for me to say!) i can't wait to see it again!

[FukuokaGirl]

I saw the midKnight (haha) showing and let me just say.... epic win!
Seriously, I was glued to my seat the entire time! (And let me tell ya, it was a long long movie... and I have to pee so bad from when [spoiler]The Joker got arrested[/spoiler]...and I thought about getting up to go to the bathroom, but I couldn't bring myself to do it and miss even a minute! XD haha)

Can I just say that even though Heath Ledger as The Joker was PHENOMENAL and flawless, Aaron Eckhart stole the show as Harvey Dent!!! XD He was excellent!!!
Everything about this film was utterly fantastic!
Batman has always been my favorite superhero because he's so awesome! He has no superpowers, just intense skill and a dark past. He's the man! XD
I'm SO glad to see Batman finally being made the way it should be! Goodbye the campy and frilly films of the '90s.

One thought/question:
[spoiler]I was really surprised to see all of the Two-Face story played out in this film. I really thought Dent's part was going to end in the hospital after Gordon says his name and he shows his face. I thought they were going to leave Two-Face to be the villain in the next film. I was genuinely surprised. Pleasantly so, I mean the movie rocks. I just didn't expect it. haha[/spoiler]

Also.... this rocked my face
[spoiler]Bat Bike FTW~~!~[/spoiler]

All in all, I LOVED it. Epic Win!
<3

[Ashley]

I just saw it, too. And it gave me lots of ponderous, deep thoughts, all of which you can find on my blog (in my sig) if you so desire.

In my mind, I can't really say I found it good (too deeply disturbing) or bad (...still some good, interesting things to think about; not full of the feel-good crap movies usually push). It was simply deep.

[jon_jinn]

i finally saw it yesterday night. it was good. it was REAL good. i think it was successfully able to live up to all of its hype. the fact that it had a deeper message was quite fascinating. ledger was pure brilliance as the Joker. unfortunately, i don't think the movie, itself, was able to live up to the performance that ledger gave. though the movie was very good, it didn't live up to the standards of ledger's performance. nonetheless, it was very very good.

[Sheenar]

I was finally able to see this last night. It was pretty good. Yup, really good. The Joker was always the villain that scared me the most in the Animated Series and Heath definitely portrayed the Joker true to his reputation.

I give it an 8/10. Not one of my favorite movies, but a good one nonetheless.

[Fish and Chips]

[SPOILER]I actually thought it was good that they finished off the Crane thing. After all, in Batman Begins, we're left not knowing what happened to him, just that he ran off into the night. It was good that we got to see him back in custody again, and that also provided a good intro for the "copycat" Batman...s. XD[/SPOILER]

[spoiler]Nah, he was fairly expendable in all that.

I guess I felt his character was sufficiently swept under the rug in the aftermath of Batman Begins. Half-mad on his own hallucinogens, tazered to the face to collapse off in the distance. Crane was effective not because of who he was, but because of who he wasn't. Cut off the head of the snake, the body writhes and goes nowhere. Killing Ra's Al Ghoul means Crane boils down to just another common criminal, easily taken care of off screen.

And it still had that bad celebrity cameo aftertaste.[/spoiler]

[SPOILER]I'm actually glad that they left the Joker alive. After all, Batman and the Joker literally "complete" each other. The Joker, as far as I know, never really got killed off in the comics, and I'm glad they left him alive here. I've heard that Nolan doesn't want to make another installment to this Batman series, and if he ends up leaving it as-is, then I think it works that the Joker is still alive and, even if imprisoned, could still fight Batman someday. It's just tragic that it'll never happen, with Heath Ledger's death.[/SPOILER]

[spoiler]They never killed the Joker in the comics because it's bad business to kill off a popular villain you can get a lot more milage out of over the next several thousand back issues of DC's World's Finest and Detective Comics. And it's a handy excuse not to write new bad guys too terribly often. But in film, that kind of ending offers no real closure for the audience. Whether Nolan has a sequel in the works or not, we need a more satisfying conclusion than the villain is captured by the police he previously infiltrated and manipulated and escaped from earlier in the movie. The Joker does not have to die, but arresting him was the weakest of their choices.[/spoiler]

[SPOILER]I think that Two Face is still alive. IF Nolan chooses to make a third installment, I think he's got material to work with Two Face and Catwoman (the line about cats not being able to scratch through Batman's armor subtly pointed towards that). He's probably been taken to jail, but I imagine that if Nolan does make a third movie, he'll get out somehow and become the villain next time.[/SPOILER]

[SPOILER]I think you might have missed the point on this, though I may have too, so I have an excuse to see the movie again.

The problem is the ending works only if Two Face is out of the picture. Jim Gordon delivering a public commemoration of Harvey Dent's ideals, Batman taking the rap, loses all it's steam if Two Face is alive and kicking and walking around. "I believe in Harvey Dent, except that we lied about his death and he's actually an emotionally cold psychopath right now." His fate is too ambiguous in this sense.[/SPOILER]

[Radical Dreamer]

Just got back from seeing it a second time! It really does stand up to each additional watch--I love it even more. XD

It's kind of interesting, because I've read some reviews on TDK, and one thing I've seen from a few of the reviewers is that the movie wasn't "fun" enough. I have to wonder what they were expecting from a movie this dark--just because it's a summer blockbuster doesn't automatically mean it can't be thought-provoking and dark. I just thought that was an interesting criticism. XD

[spoiler]I guess I felt his character was sufficiently swept under the rug in the aftermath of Batman Begins. Half-mad on his own hallucinogens, tazered to the face to collapse off in the distance. Crane was effective not because of who he was, but because of who he wasn't. Cut off the head of the snake, the body writhes and goes nowhere. Killing Ra's Al Ghoul means Crane boils down to just another common criminal, easily taken care of off screen.[/spoiler]

[SPOILER]I dunno, I mean, obviously Crane still had dealings with the mob, and for the first bit of the movie, that's who Gotham's police are after. I thought it was good to see a familiar face (Scarecrow) among the nearly faceless mob guys. I also liked the fact that Scarecrow was the only one there who had seen Batman before--it worked well to have him recognize the fake "Batmen."[/spoiler]

[spoiler]They never killed the Joker in the comics because it's bad business to kill off a popular villain you can get a lot more milage out of over the next several thousand back issues of DC's World's Finest and Detective Comics. And it's a handy excuse not to write new bad guys too terribly often. But in film, that kind of ending offers no real closure for the audience. Whether Nolan has a sequel in the works or not, we need a more satisfying conclusion than the villain is captured by the police he previously infiltrated and manipulated and escaped from earlier in the movie. The Joker does not have to die, but arresting him was the weakest of their choices.[/spoiler]

[SPOILER]Ehh, I dunno. I think the ending wouldn't have been as satisfying if the Joker had been killed off. It doesn't matter that the part can't be played ever again, it just seems strange to have Batman without his almost-arch-nemesis. If another movie isn't made, it simply leaves open the idea that he IS still out there and Batman will always have a villain to fight. One of the things that I thought was so good about the movie was that it didn't tie up all the loose ends, it left you to consider some things]

[SPOILER]The problem is the ending works only if Two Face is out of the picture. Jim Gordon delivering a public commemoration of Harvey Dent's ideals, Batman taking the rap, loses all it's steam if Two Face is alive and kicking and walking around. "I believe in Harvey Dent, except that we lied about his death and he's actually an emotionally cold psychopath right now." His fate is too ambiguous in this sense.[/SPOILER]

[SPOILER]On the other hand, however, it could be said that Harvey Dent IS dead. Technically, he's no longer Gotham's White Knight. I don't think it would be too much of a problem for the plot, should Nolan decide to continue, to have Two Face be a villain in the next movie. It could actually create an interesting plot line with the citizens against Gordon and Batman for telling them that Dent was dead in the first place. Either way, I don't think it was a bad move.[/SPOILER]

[jon_jinn]

i hope to watch it a second time this week probably. hopefully, i will be able to catch more of the dialog and come to hold a higher appreciation for the movie's wonderful script. also, i simply cannot get enough of Ledger's masterful performance.

[ich1990]

Well, I saw it a few days ago, and, like most people have said, it is a very good movie. I plan to see it again soon. I did have a few problems with it, however.

[spoiler]
First off, how did the Joker teach his men to impersonate the guards so well? During the scene were Gordon is "killed" the Joker and his men pull off a "21 gun salute" (if that is what it was) quite well. Did he practice with his men before hand? Further, when performing a gun-fire salute, blank shells are typically used so as to avoid shooting out nearby windows. That means that the Joker must have found out what caliber bullet those guns use and purchased real bullets to swap for the blanks. Both of these things require a level of planning, predictablitiy, foresight that does not mesh well with the Joker's "style".

Also, I have seen burns before and Two-face's face did not look like it was burned. How did his eyelids get completely burned off yet leave his eye completely intact? Also, with an open wound of that sort, wouldn't infection set in relatively quickly? It seems that the director got so caught up in making his face look "shocking" to actually make it realistic. [/spoiler]

Although I was a little dissapointed with a few rather unrealistic portions of the movie, I did enjoy it thoroughly.

[Radical Dreamer]

[spoiler]
First off, how did the Joker teach his men to impersonate the guards so well? During the scene were Gordon is "killed" the Joker and his men pull off a "21 gun salute" (if that is what it was) quite well. Did he practice with his men before hand? Further, when performing a gun-fire salute, blank shells are typically used so as to avoid shooting out nearby windows. That means that the Joker must have found out what caliber bullet those guns use and purchased real bullets to swap for the blanks. Both of these things require a level of planning, predictablity, foresight that does not mesh well with the Joker's "style".

Also, I have seen burns before and Two-face's face did not look like it was burned. How did his eyelids get completely burned off yet leave his eye completely intact? Also, with an open wound of that sort, wouldn't infection set in relatively quickly? It seems that the director got so caught up in making his face look "shocking" to actually make it realistic. [/spoiler]

[SPOILER]I wondered the same thing about the Joker but I let it slide 'cause it's a comic book movie and I liked that scene. Same with Two Face's character design (which I loved)--allow for a little leeway with comic book characters. XD I mean seriously, how many movies/TV shows have you seen where people get wounds and infection doesn't set in? Honestly, while I definitely appreciate Nolan's more realistic setting for the Batman films, I am totally okay with it if he doesn't get down to every little medical detail. That just kind of takes the fun out of it. XD]

[ich1990]

[SPOILER]I wondered the same thing about the Joker but I let it slide 'cause it's a comic book movie and I liked that scene. Same with Two Face's character design (which I loved)--allow for a little leeway with comic book characters. XD I mean seriously, how many movies/TV shows have you seen where people get wounds and infection doesn't set in? Honestly, while I definitely appreciate Nolan's more realistic setting for the Batman films, I am totally okay with it if he doesn't get down to every little medical detail. That just kind of takes the fun out of it. XD]

[spoiler]Well yes, I am being a little bit harsh about the small details. All the same, I think a movie should follow the rules of the environment that it is set in. A car that can jump across rooftops? Sure. A gas that causes people to die from fear? Sure. An eyelid getting burned off without hurting the eye underneath? Unrealistic. Maybe it is my science fiction nerd showing. [/spoiler]

[Ashley]

[spoiler]They never said the eye was real, and remember that one scene where it was telescoped vision? I was under the impression it's a fake, glass eye. That doesn't explain the infection issue, but still.[/spoiler]

[ich1990]

[spoiler]They never said the eye was real, and remember that one scene where it was telescoped vision? I was under the impression it's a fake, glass eye. That doesn't explain the infection issue, but still.[/spoiler]

[spoiler] That is a possibility. For that to be the case, they must have removed his damaged eye and inserted the glass one before he regained consciousness. I can't imagine that he would have denied himself skin grafts and pain medication yet accepted a glass eyeball. That answer also opens up the question "why didn't he pull the glass eyeball out?". He ripped off his bandage and was obviously relishing the horrified looks he was getting from people. Would he have given up the chance to show himself as he truly was? Also, I don't remember the telescoped vision, could you refresh my memory? I am going to see it again soon, so I will keep my eye out for it (pun intended). [/spoiler]

[ADXC]

I just saw it today and I thought it was fantastic. For me this is the best movie of the summer. (Alot better than Hancock.) Sorry that Im not saying too much, but I really did like this movie alot. Im definitely going to buy it on dvd when it comes out.

[LadyRushia]

I've seen it twice and all I really have to say is that Heath Ledger is The Joker.

Also, the pencil scene and the scene where Fox completely owned that guy with his own logic are my favorites, XD.

[Ashley]

[spoiler]That is a possibility. For that to be the case, they must have removed his damaged eye and inserted the glass one before he regained consciousness. I can't imagine that he would have denied himself skin grafts and pain medication yet accepted a glass eyeball. That answer also opens up the question "why didn't he pull the glass eyeball out?". He ripped off his bandage and was obviously relishing the horrified looks he was getting from people. Would he have given up the chance to show himself as he truly was? Also, I don't remember the telescoped vision, could you refresh my memory? I am going to see it again soon, so I will keep my eye out for it (pun intended).
[/spoiler]

[spoiler] I suppose the unconscious thing is probably the best possibility, and as for not ripping it out, well, I find it more disturbing with it in anyway. But it's also possible that they had him restrained in the beginning (thus incapable of doing it), and after he's on the loose, he could have better things on his mind or just couldn't reach in to take it out. Anyway, about the telescoping vision, it's in the beginning of the scene where Gordon comes to visit him in the hospital.[/spoiler]

[Mr. SmartyPants]

And since when has Superhero comics ever been realistic? It's these kinds of movies where there ought to be some leeway for realism.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

this generally seems to be the consensus on Bale's performance, though I've gotta say that I really like his Batman voice... He did seem to get a little less understandable this time around, though.

[Stephen]

[SPOILER]Joker never killed in the comics? I am pretty sure they did an arc where he killed Robin and Batman hunted him down and killed him in cold blood. I will have to look into this.



Edit. According to Wikipedia..."Believing Robin had been eaten by Killer Croc in the ensuing madness, Nightwing eventually catches up with the Joker and beats him to death. To keep Nightwing from having blood on his hands, Batman resuscitates the Joker.[25]"


Maybe thats what I was thinking. *shrug* I was so sure Joker died in a story arc...

[/SPOILER]