Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Dark Knight

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Dark Knight

    So, I saw the new Batman movie last night (opening night, a friend invited me).

    Probably the best Batman movie so far. Also the longest (a little under 3 hours).

    Great movie, wonderful actors, and the whole psycological elements behind the villains was so beautifully portraid that it was both easy to understand and incredibly deep.

    Before I went into the movie, I made a prediction: Heath Ledger would win the Oscar for Best Supporting actor. After watching the film, I feel vindicated with my choice.

    His acting was incredible, and I believe that if he hadn't died he would at least have been nominated (the Oscars don't like action movies so much), but the tragedy of his death combined with an amazing last performance ensures he will posthumously win an Oscar.

    Go see the movie, you won't regret it.

    And look out for the Pencil trick, it's a goody!

  • #2
    Yeah This Movie Rocks!!!!cant Wait To See It A 3rd Time,havent Done That Since Star Wars Ep.3.ledger Better Get A Oscar If Thers Any Justice Left In The World He Will.also Cant Wait For The Dvd To See What Didnt Make The Cut,gotta Be Som Doozys.
    If the art of war were nothing but the art of avoiding risks,glory would become the prey of mediocre minds. Napoleon

    Comment


    • #3
      My nephew has seen it twice and claims it is one of the best batman movies out there.

      My only alternative point is this:

      If Heath Ledger had not died, would the movie be generating the amount of buzz it is?
      You called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that? It says United States Marshal! I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it! So run, tell all the other curs the law's comin'! You tell 'em I'M coming...and hell's coming with me.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, it probably would not. I was not really that entertained. Personally, I enjoyed the first movie more - and it certainly wasn't as long. I just find Heath Ledger's Joker creepy. Like a Jack Nicholson wannabe.

        I think I am probably one of the few who don't enjoy the movie.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
          No, it probably would not. I was not really that entertained. Personally, I enjoyed the first movie more - and it certainly wasn't as long. I just find Heath Ledger's Joker creepy. Like a Jack Nicholson wannabe.

          I think I am probably one of the few who don't enjoy the movie.
          I don't think so either.

          I enjoyed the old Batman t.v. series with Adam West starring as batman. In my opinion, special effects in newer movies are substituded for plot depth.

          However, I am not saying the new Batman movie does not have a deep plot. I just have not seen it.
          You called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that? It says United States Marshal! I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it! So run, tell all the other curs the law's comin'! You tell 'em I'M coming...and hell's coming with me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cole Thornton View Post
            My only alternative point is this:

            If Heath Ledger had not died, would the movie be generating the amount of buzz it is?
            Yes, it would have, just because its a very succesful franchise. The previous Batman was a good movie, and there was lots of "hype" for the film long before Ledger's death. A few of my friends with much more interest in the comics genre were excited about the film early in its development, and when they heard Ledger died one of their first questions was if the film were to be cancelled.

            Sure, you might have heard a little less about it, but Ledger died in January and the studio actually had to change their advertising scheme before the movie was released to try and move away from using Heath Ledger for a while after he died. There was actually less advertising in the months after his death.

            Its generating the "buzz" as it were because it was a great movie. A little on the long side, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I dont read the comics or anything like that, but I loved the psycological undercurrents of the film.

            And Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was amazing, and I don't say that because he died. He did such a great job, and after the film all I actually lamented his death. He had never really been on my radar before hand, but after seeing the film I became a fan of his acting.

            Yet I still can't really remember any films he's been in that I have seen besides The Dark Knight. I guess I saw 'A Knight's Tale', but that wasn't a very memorable film.

            But I will concede that Ledger's Oscar will definetly be because he died. Otherwise he would just have been nominated (the Oscar's don't really appreciate Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi movies too much).

            DoD: Nostradamus of the Oscars.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
              Yes, it would have, just because its a very succesful franchise. The previous Batman was a good movie, and there was lots of "hype" for the film long before Ledger's death. A few of my friends with much more interest in the comics genre were excited about the film early in its development, and when they heard Ledger died one of their first questions was if the film were to be cancelled.

              Sure, you might have heard a little less about it, but Ledger died in January and the studio actually had to change their advertising scheme before the movie was released to try and move away from using Heath Ledger for a while after he died. There was actually less advertising in the months after his death.

              Its generating the "buzz" as it were because it was a great movie. A little on the long side, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I dont read the comics or anything like that, but I loved the psycological undercurrents of the film.

              And Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was amazing, and I don't say that because he died. He did such a great job, and after the film all I actually lamented his death. He had never really been on my radar before hand, but after seeing the film I became a fan of his acting.

              Yet I still can't really remember any films he's been in that I have seen besides The Dark Knight. I guess I saw 'A Knight's Tale', but that wasn't a very memorable film.

              But I will concede that Ledger's Oscar will definetly be because he died. Otherwise he would just have been nominated (the Oscar's don't really appreciate Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi movies too much).

              DoD: Nostradamus of the Oscars.
              That very well may be the case, as I have heard from several people that it was a good movie, and with the movie being a "batman" movie, there may have been enough buzz with that.

              Were all of the 'Joker' parts filmed prior to his death, or were there scenes that needed reworked, or filmed from a distance/different angle, such that someone else could have portrayed the Joker?
              You called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that? It says United States Marshal! I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it! So run, tell all the other curs the law's comin'! You tell 'em I'M coming...and hell's coming with me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cole Thornton View Post
                I enjoyed the old Batman t.v. series with Adam West starring as batman. In my opinion, special effects in newer movies are substituded for plot depth.
                Did you just claim that the Batman series with Adam West had "plot depth"?





                Thats the same Batman where in the movie the Joker "dehydrates" all of the world leaders, turning them into dust before trying to escape on the Penguin's submarine (complete with penguin paddling feet instead of propellors) with all of the world leaders inside small test-tubes, right?

                However, I am not saying the new Batman movie does not have a deep plot. I just have not seen it.
                Its worth seeing. The plot is actually very engrossing, with good character development that really gives you a sense of each character, from the downright psycotic and anarchic Joker to the driven and nearly obsessive Bruce Wayne/Batman.

                But, be prepared for a long movie. Nearly three hours is almost too long, and in all honesty it could have been 10 minutes shorter without hurting any of the plot.

                Its a great film, and its my favorite of the year (although I havn't seen that Ghengis Khan movie yet), but I don't expect that to be true of everyone. Its worth seeing, but don't go in thinking its going to be as great as I say, because if there is one thing that can ruin a good film is going in expecting its going to be a great film.

                So now you're a movie critic and a philosopher too, DoD?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cole Thornton View Post
                  That very well may be the case, as I have heard from several people that it was a good movie, and with the movie being a "batman" movie, there may have been enough buzz with that.
                  Yeah, for comparison we could look at the Spiderman movies. Look at how much advertising we had to put up with for the latest one. The advertising for the Dark Knight really only seemed to pop up outside of movie theatres in the last few weeks, while the Spiderman advertising was taking place for months before the film released.

                  Were all of the 'Joker' parts filmed prior to his death, or were there scenes that needed reworked, or filmed from a distance/different angle, such that someone else could have portrayed the Joker?
                  All filming was completed a month or two before his death, if I remember correctly. Its was in the middle of the editing process when he died if I am not mistaken, which means that they didn't need to replace him for any major scenes (except for the usually stuff like stunts and the like).

                  If he was "replaced" during the movie for certain scenes, I definetly didn't notice. If you wait until the DVD comes out, I bet teams of nerds will be pouring over it to try and see if her was actually in all of his scenes.

                  The special effects were actually not excessive or anything as undesireable as the "all-CGI" of the newest Star Wars films. In fact, it was all pretty well done, and most of the scenes are very believable (Batman's cycle-thing and his car actually do drive fast, for instance).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
                    Did you just claim that the Batman series with Adam West had "plot depth"?
                    No. That was a separate argument, unrelated to the old t.v. series.

                    Newer movies now, tend to be over-blown with special effects, with unrealistic things being portrayed, and thus the plot usually suffers.

                    eg. a car exploding with the energy of a high velocity explosive after being shot at or crashed.

                    Apparently, this new batman movie is more believable.

                    So now you're a movie critic and a philosopher too, DoD?
                    I am commenting on a movie my nephew saw, what I think of newer movies, and how I liked the Adam West batman t.v. series.

                    I am also an English composer and philosopher, as I write and speak in English.
                    Last edited by Cole Thornton; 29 Jul 08, 13:39.
                    You called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that? It says United States Marshal! I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it! So run, tell all the other curs the law's comin'! You tell 'em I'M coming...and hell's coming with me.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Seen it twice and was the best Batman movie of all I think
                      "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
                      "

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cole Thornton View Post
                        No. That was a separate argument, unrelated to the old t.v. series.
                        Allrighty, gotcha.

                        Newer movies now, tend to be over-blown with special effects, with unrealistic things being portrayed, and thus the plot usually suffers.
                        I agree. While a consistent CG look can aid a movie to accomplish amazing things (the Lord of the Rings, for instance), it cannot overcome the basics of filmaking: good acting, and a good plot.

                        For instance, consider the most recent Indiana Jones movie to the older ones. The older ones relied more on the 'Old School' Special Effects, with real stunts by real stuntmen, and real explosions. People appreciated that. The newest one, however, relied a bit too much on CGI. It was still a good movie in my opinion, but the weakest of the bunch.

                        Lucas has a love for CGI that has affected his movie making to a great degree. The newest Star Wars seemed to have embraced CGI to an extreme, and it suffered from it (that and they needed a different Darth Vader imho), even when they had good acting and a decent plot.

                        Good CGI can improve a film but a little, while bad CGI can help ruin one. But even then, the most important aspect of a film is the plot and the acting. Dark Knight had both in spades, and CGI was never a focus of a scene as it was in Star War's space battles and such.

                        Apparently, this new batman movie is more believable.
                        As believable as a superhero movie can be, really. The characters are very believable, even the crazed Joker.

                        I am also an English composer and philosopher, as I write and speak in English.
                        Me too!

                        DoD can't write good, but I does.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
                          For instance, consider the most recent Indiana Jones movie to the older ones. The older ones relied more on the 'Old School' Special Effects, with real stunts by real stuntmen, and real explosions. People appreciated that. The newest one, however, relied a bit too much on CGI. It was still a good movie in my opinion, but the weakest of the bunch.
                          I completely agree with you there. The old one's still stand the test of time too. I recently watched them and they were still believable, and not cheesy.

                          I would rather have a movie with less special effects, and more realistic action sequences, than a star wars style special effects movie.

                          The problem with that is, it seems a lot of movie goers love the special effects, and if they don't see a bunch, they do not go to see the movie, regardless of how realistic it is.
                          You called down the thunder, well now you've got it! You see that? It says United States Marshal! I see a red sash, I kill the man wearin' it! So run, tell all the other curs the law's comin'! You tell 'em I'M coming...and hell's coming with me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            by DoD: Yeah, for comparison we could look at the Spiderman movies. Look at how much advertising we had to put up with for the latest one. The advertising for the Dark Knight really only seemed to pop up outside of movie theatres in the last few weeks, while the Spiderman advertising was taking place for months before the film released.
                            In fact, advertising for the Dark Knight went on for months prior to release, here in Colorado.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MountainMan View Post
                              In fact, advertising for the Dark Knight went on for months prior to release, here in Colorado.
                              The only advertising I saw here in Texas was in the theatres themselves, up until about a month before the movies release. Then I started to see tv ads and such.

                              I believe that the original plans for advertising had to be radically changed in light of Ledger's death, and I really didn't see lots of his image being used in advertisements up until they started showing clips from the movie in tv spots.

                              The executives/ad agency probably felt that using lots of Ledger soon after his death would be in poor taste, and probably have a negative reaction from the public at large.

                              They could have used his corpse as a ventriloquist's dummy for Talk-show appearances.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X