The OFFICIAL The Dark Knight thread

[Delorean90 42]

Wow, I'm surprised at the reactions to

Two-Face's look

. If you look at him in The Long Halloween, he looks almost exactly like that in the film. I mean, when it was first revealed in the film I was like, "Holy crap! That's just like in the comic!"

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I can see this film, like Burton's Batman, not holding up over time.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just bought Batman Begins on DVD. Might see the second one soon, very soon.

[Vaderbait1 1]

we came out stunned too, but we were underwhelmed. While both of us really like it, it failed to live up to the hype.

*** out of ****

the more I think about it the more I think Eckhart was the star, sad but Bale was overshadowed by Eckhart, Ledger, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman.

I think i was stunned that I was underwhelmed. It, by far, failed to live up to the hype. Heath deserves every ounce of credit he's getting for this film because he's just that good. In fact, he's the best thing about the movie by far. I kept waiting for him to show up because the movie came alive when he was on the screen.

I enjoyed Batman Begins because there was a story behind the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman. This movie had too much going on and takes itself far too seriously.

Unfortunately, ever since I came out of the theater a week ago with my Batman shirt on, I haven't been able to shake this feeling that all the fanboys should give this film 5 years and see how they feel about it. I can't help but think that it won't be as highly regarded as it is today. Good? yes. Very good? Maybe. The best comic book movie ever? Not a chance in hell. As I said in another thread, anyone who says that was born after 1978 or never saw Superman: The Movie. Hell, even Iron Man was more enjoyable.

I would agree that it's 3 stars...but I might say out of 5 instead of 4.

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

we came out stunned too, but we were underwhelmed. While both of us really like it, it failed to live up to the hype.

*** out of ****

the more I think about it the more I think Eckhart was the star, sad but Bale was overshadowed by Eckhart, Ledger, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman.

I think i was stunned that I was underwhelmed. It, by far, failed to live up to the hype. Heath deserves every ounce of credit he's getting for this film because he's just that good. In fact, he's the best thing about the movie by far. I kept waiting for him to show up because the movie came alive when he was on the screen.

I enjoyed Batman Begins because there was a story behind the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman. This movie had too much going on and takes itself far too seriously.

Unfortunately, ever since I came out of the theater a week ago with my Batman shirt on, I haven't been able to shake this feeling that all the fanboys should give this film 5 years and see how they feel about it. I can't help but think that it won't be as highly regarded as it is today. Good? yes. Very good? Maybe. The best comic book movie ever? Not a chance in hell. As I said in another thread, anyone who says that was born after 1978 or never saw Superman: The Movie. Hell, even Iron Man was more enjoyable.

I would agree that it's 3 stars...but I might say out of 5 instead of 4.

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

you're to be taken out and shot at dawn, your crime, disrespect of Superman the Movie.

[Ollie 1,059]

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

No offense but I would say your opinion of Superman is misguided. Especially if you think X-2 is better film.

I can't understand pacing issues, the film takes it's time to tell a story. The action scenes are spaced and don't pop up every 2 minutes like most films today. It gives you time to breath in between each of Superman's appearances.

The acting is very good, Hackman, Brando, Glen Ford, Jackie Cooper, Ned Beatty and especially Christopher Reeve, do an outstanding job with their characters.

The music alone elevates it above all the superhero films.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The music alone elevates it above all the superhero films.

that goes without saying.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Wow, I'm surprised at the reactions to

Two-Face's look

. If you look at him in The Long Halloween, he looks almost exactly like that in the film. I mean, when it was first revealed in the film I was like, "Holy crap! That's just like in the comic!"

I haven't read the comics.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

My only problem with

the Two-Face design

was that it reminded me heavily of

the Terminator's metal skeleton

.

but that shouldn't be seen as a negative, afterall the structure of the skeleton was meant to capture the human facial structure.

[DigitalfreakNYC 59]

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

Again, completely disagree. As was stated above, the film had some truly wonderful performances. All of the characters were endearing and relateable. It's also got a screenplay written by Mario Puzo. When's the last time a "superhero movie" got a script written by someone who also wrote something of Godfather calibur.

I've seen it several times since I was a kid and it holds up immensely well...right from the opening line "this is no fantasy..."

The Dark Knight is just that: Dark.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

we came out stunned too, but we were underwhelmed. While both of us really like it, it failed to live up to the hype.

*** out of ****

the more I think about it the more I think Eckhart was the star, sad but Bale was overshadowed by Eckhart, Ledger, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman.

I think i was stunned that I was underwhelmed. It, by far, failed to live up to the hype. Heath deserves every ounce of credit he's getting for this film because he's just that good. In fact, he's the best thing about the movie by far. I kept waiting for him to show up because the movie came alive when he was on the screen.

I enjoyed Batman Begins because there was a story behind the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman. This movie had too much going on and takes itself far too seriously.

Unfortunately, ever since I came out of the theater a week ago with my Batman shirt on, I haven't been able to shake this feeling that all the fanboys should give this film 5 years and see how they feel about it. I can't help but think that it won't be as highly regarded as it is today. Good? yes. Very good? Maybe. The best comic book movie ever? Not a chance in hell. As I said in another thread, anyone who says that was born after 1978 or never saw Superman: The Movie. Hell, even Iron Man was more enjoyable.

I would agree that it's 3 stars...but I might say out of 5 instead of 4.

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

You have to be on crack to think that Superman: The Movie has not aged well.

[Romão 2,274]

The Dark is by far the best superhero movie of comic book adaptation ever made. It's so far ahead every other movie in the genre it shouldn't even be included in the genre.

And no offence, I loved Burton's Batman when I was a boy and TDK certainly owes a lot to its predecessors that paved the way, but The Dark Knight is such a better movie that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

My only problem with

the Two-Face design

was that it reminded me heavily of

the Terminator's metal skeleton

.

but that shouldn't be seen as a negative, afterall the structure of the skeleton was meant to capture the human facial structure.

True, but I really noticed it in the first few scenes. I adjusted to it after a while though.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

Again, completely disagree. As was stated above, the film had some truly wonderful performances. All of the characters were endearing and relateable. It's also got a screenplay written by Mario Puzo. When's the last time a "superhero movie" got a script written by someone who also wrote something of Godfather calibur.

I've seen it several times since I was a kid and it holds up immensely well...right from the opening line "this is no fantasy..."

The Dark Knight is just that: Dark.

the acting isn't that great???

There is the scene where Clark picks up Lois for their date, and she's befuddled after meeting Superman, Reeve as Clark suddenly straightens up, stretches his shoulders, deepens his voice, and says Lois I'm really, then he (the man of steel) chickens out, and slumps back into Clark and say I thought we could go for a hamburger. If thats not great acting, I don't know what is.

Its not just Reeve, and Hackman either, everyone has at least a moment, like later when Valerie Perrine as Ms Techmaucher kisses Superman, and he asks her why? Her reply, and she stutters it, saying she didn't think he'd let her later. Its a charming sequence that could have ended up campy or a throw away sceen but its not. The movie is filled with wonderful moments.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I understand and respect your decision, but your praise of Superman: The Movie is misguided. The movie has not aged well and suffered from massive pacing issues even back then. The acting isn't all that great and though Hackman steals the show as Luthor, there's really nothing else all that memorable about it.

It's a good movie, but hardly the greatest comic book movie ever made. I'd put both X2 and TDK above it.

Again, completely disagree. As was stated above, the film had some truly wonderful performances. All of the characters were endearing and relateable. It's also got a screenplay written by Mario Puzo. When's the last time a "superhero movie" got a script written by someone who also wrote something of Godfather calibur.

I've seen it several times since I was a kid and it holds up immensely well...right from the opening line "this is no fantasy..."

The Dark Knight is just that: Dark.

the acting isn't that great???

There is the scene where Clark picks up Lois for their date, and she's befuddled after meeting Superman, Reeve as Clark suddenly straightens up, stretches his shoulders, deepens his voice, and says Lois I'm really, then he (the man of steel) chickens out, and slumps back into Clark and say I thought we could go for a hamburger. If thats not great acting, I don't know what is.

Its not just Reeve, and Hackman either, everyone has at least a moment, like later when Valerie Perrine as Ms Techmaucher kisses Superman, and he asks her why? Her reply, and she stutters it, saying she didn't think he'd let her later. Its a charming sequence that could have ended up campy or a throw away sceen but its not. The movie is filled with wonderful moments.

It's a good movie, no doubt. I'm not bashing it. But to say that the acting in it was amazing is wrong. Reeve didn't have that much range as an actor, but he was good. Hackman is great. But everyone else is...well...average. Not bad. Just average.

[Romão 2,274]

Superman, specially its first hour, is quite an achievement and the music works almost as a sort of symphony for the Superman mythos. The second half does drag a bit. When I praise TDK I don't mean to take anything away from this movie. Their tone and purposes are so far apart I don't think you could even consider them to be in the same genre.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Superman, specially its first hour, is quite an achievement and the music works almost as a sort of symphony for the Superman mythos. The second half does drag a bit. When I praise TDK I don't mean to take anything away from this movie. Their tone and purposes are so far apart I don't think you could even consider them to be in the same genre.

Agreed. It's been said many times that TDK transcends the comic book movie genre.

[MSM 126]

I want to share some thought on The Dark Night.

I just wen to see it, because everybody said it was such a good movie.

Let's get right to the point. I don't say Dark Knight wasn't a good movie, but i felt it was too raw and too dark especiallycompared to the first one, which already was kind of dark. I don't need to come out of cinema laughing or cheering, but in this case I got out depressed and having a headache.

Maybe it was all the violence, all the terrifying blackmail scenes, or the too loud sound effects, or the intimidating acting efforts, I don't know. Maybe it's just not my type of movie. But I wonder if people felt the same.

[Romão 2,274]

I felt quite exausted after watching, yes, but that only adds to the praise of the movie. It was emotionally draning for me. It was an experience.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

You are a Batman freak did you know it, Merk?

The Departure (Awesome!)

[Romão 2,274]

I've been for quite a long time, thank very much, Manuel

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Just curious, as a fellow 'appreciator' (sp???) of good CGI.

How is this movie's CGI?

I found Batman Begins' to be sub-standard.

[Romão 2,274]

As far as I could tell, Manuel, there's actually very little of it. On top of my bhead, I can't really recall any major CGI sequence in the movie, the whole thing felt very real and pratical-effects driven. However, I'm pretty sure Two-Face had some CGI enhancements done to his face, and I must say they look quite stunning.

Iron Man I found had tremendous blend of CGI and pratical effects.

[MSM 126]

Just curious, as a fellow 'appreciator' (sp???) of good CGI.

How is this movie's CGI?

I found Batman Begins' to be sub-standard.

They are fine. Batmans gadgets get a bit out of hand IMO, but that's the story and not the effects. Two-face is done good. It's not meant to shock, it's part of the story. All the explosion stuff is alright. The story grips you that much, however, that you don't have the time even too consider whether the effects are good or not.

@ Markel: exhausted is the right word

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

that you don't have the time even too consider whether the effects are good or not.

I weird regarding effects.

[MSM 126]

that you don't have the time even too consider whether the effects are good or not.

I weird regarding effects.

I think you will regard them ok.

[John Crichton 4]

After having the whole movie be so CG-lite (if there was any at all) the Two Face effect bothered me a bit just because it was so overtly CG. It's not as smoothly done as, say, Davy Jones.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Was CGI neccesary for that character? I would think make up could be just fine...

[Romão 2,274]

When you see him you'll understand why.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

dont tell me there are holes in his head...

[MSM 126]

dont tell me there are holes in his head...

Ok, we won't tell you .

[Henry B 50]

Just curious, as a fellow 'appreciator' (sp???) of good CGI.

How is this movie's CGI?

I found Batman Begins' to be sub-standard.

Really? I don't remember much CGI in Batman Begins. Except for the Scarecrow fear toxin stuff, but that was meant to look stylized, not realistic.

The only bad CGI in The Dark Knight is a shot or two involving Batman jumping off a building. I read that that was actually going to be filmed, but Nolan couldn't get clearance from whoever was involved at the shooting location.

[Wycket 36]

Just curious, as a fellow 'appreciator' (sp???) of good CGI.

How is this movie's CGI?

I found Batman Begins' to be sub-standard.

Really? I don't remember much CGI in Batman Begins. Except for the Scarecrow fear toxin stuff, but that was meant to look stylized, not realistic.

The only bad CGI in The Dark Knight is a shot or two involving Batman jumping off a building. I read that that was actually going to be filmed, but Nolan couldn't get clearance from whoever was involved at the shooting location.

Yeah, I also think that was to be filmed after the stunt driver died, so even if they had the clearance they were thinking of doing it digitally.

I think the CGI in Begins was very good. Don't forget, there is no monorail in Chicago but it seemed very real to me throughout the entire movie. I think there was something like 400 effects shots in Begins, which is pretty low for a film of its magnitude. Says a lot about Nolan that he's able to make such a great couple films without using a lot of CGI.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I think there was something like 400 effects shots in Begins, which is pretty low for a film of its magnitude. Says a lot about Nolan that he's able to make such a great couple films without using a lot of CGI.

Thats about the same number of shots in Indy IV I think...which is 200 less than Transformers...

[Red 75]

Two-Face wasn't the only major use of CGI in the film. All of the

sonar vision

business relied heavily on it as well.

[Morlock 11]

I may have missed this portion of the conversation...but I saw at least one shot of Two-face, in his final scene in the movie, that looked like makeup, not CGI.

[Romão 2,274]

Two-Face wasn't the only major use of CGI in the film. All of the

sonar vision

business relied heavily on it as well.

But that's suposed to look like CGI anyway. That's pretty much what it is on itself, computer graphics.

[Morlock 11]

What about the explosions? The

hospital

one looked mightily convincing.

[Red 75]

What about the explosions? The

hospital

one looked mightily convincing.

I believe all the explosions were real, including the

hospital

one.

[John Crichton 4]

What about the explosions? The

hospital

one looked mightily convincing.

I believe all the explosions were real, including the

hospital

one.

I was too busy laughing at the Joker trying to get the final charge to go off to notice.

[Romão 2,274]

Oh yeah, such a great scene

[indy4 155]

Indeed.

After having the whole movie be so CG-lite (if there was any at all) the Two Face effect bothered me a bit just because it was so overtly CG. It's not as smoothly done as, say, Davy Jones.

And Two-Face looked like The Mummy (I think somebody else here mentioned this already).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Two-Face looked like Two-Face. I can see how someone can compare it to The Mummy, but honestly, the only thing is the hole where his cheek would be. I'm also glad Nolan added the name "Two-Face" as a part of Harvey's past. It is rather dull to call him Two-Face because he literally has two faces.

[QMM 4]

What about the explosions? The

hospital

one looked mightily convincing.

It was real. It was a parking structure that was planned to be demolished anyway. They re-set it as a hospital and laid in some charges

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

I don't understand, the appearance of a skinless human face isn't something they "just came up with". It's supposed to look like The Mummy and Terminator, because they were supposed to look like skinless human faces in the first place (only one was robotic).

As for the

hospital, I was very annoyed that the most impressive shot was included on the trailer, diminishing the effect in the film. the same for the flipping truck.

! Grrr.

[Morlock 11]

I don't think the

hospital

was the most impressive shot....and either way, it was used to good effect in the trailers, and the build up to it was excellent. It packed it's punch. I was impressed by how much the trailer didn't show, frankly.

[Delorean90 42]

As for the

hospital, I was very annoyed that the most impressive shot was included on the trailer, diminishing the effect in the film. the same for the flipping truck.

! Grrr.

I was actually surprised by how much of an impact the truck moment still had, even after seeing it in just about every trailer and TV spot. In fact, I really thought it had more of an effect in the film. The context just makes it a million times cooler. The whole sequence from the time that

Dent turns himself in as Batman to the aftermath of the truck sequence with the reporters and Gordon coming home

is probably my favorite in the film. It's just wonderful.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the truck sequence had good impact, especially when it hit, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

actually it did because the trailers gave you a false impression of how the scene worked.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

the truck doing the American Graffiti thing was a damn good climax to what was a tepid chase. Spending a good amount of time watching Batman ride his bike at relatively low speeds and machine gunning garbage bins wasn't all that exciting.

[Morlock 11]

the truck sequence had good impact, especially when it hit, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

actually it did because the trailers gave you a false impression of how the scene worked.

Very true. I loved the trailers before I saw the movie, but after seeing it, I really appreciate the fact that despite the fact that the trailers were dense, they did not give a huge amount away, and even what they did show went down differeantly than one was lead to believe.