DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
What are you looking for in a movie Two Face, then? How is the Two Face from the comics not just a gangster version of a full-time Mr. Hyde?
The Dark Knight {Spoilers Abound}
- Thread starter Doublehex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- batman christian bale
What are you looking for in a movie Two Face, then? How is the Two Face from the comics not just a gangster version of a full-time Mr. Hyde?
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
maybe a version like the Timm animated Two-Face. I never said he wasn't a "gangster version of a full time Mr. Hyde." what's your point?
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Just that.
But like the Animated Version...Hmmm. I can see that working. But honesly, I still like TDK's version overall. It, more than any other adaptation, made his fall from grace/transformation into Two-Face truly tragic, gripping, and believable, especially given the franchise's slightly more "realistic" approach to the series than the previous Batman films. Eckhart did a fantastic job in the role, especially once he'd snapped/been scarred/lost Rachel.
I agree with you in a sense though, about a more classic Two Face representation on-screen. I love the Nolan verse's re-imagining of the Batman characters and mythos, but once Nolan is done (I'm sure he'll make a third somewhere down the road), I'd like to see what approach the studio will take with the Batman movie franchise.
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
agreed.
Langsta
Well-Known Member
My sister's boyfriend has the bootleg version of this on DVD.
Muahahahahahahaha
Muahahahahahahaha
ourchair
Well-Known Member
So you finally went to the mainland? Congratulations, for we in Asia have had it for awhilez.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Hmmmm...That could be cool.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
I think that would work much better as a comic book series or something of the like. While it's a cool idea, I don't think WB would realistically take that approach with a Batman movie.
Foolsfolly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,137
Heath was epic. But he still wasn't THE Joker. To be that he'd need a better sense of humor, Joker toxin, and a climatic battle/event that matched the Joker's MO better than two boats exploding.
Ra's was nothing like Ra's.
Joker's not THE Joker.
Two-Face is obsessed on 50/50 instead on 2s and duality.
Scarecrow is still the most accurate to the comics. But just because these elements are missing doesn't mean the movie versions are bad. They're all very good at what they mean to the movies.
I'm still glad they killed Two-Face, because the fixing his face story is over used and I'm tired of it. This movie didn't pull punches, actions had consequences and that's something superhero movies try to avoid.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
the other day i was thinking, what if WB re released TDK in Oscar season? Would it then be able to make the money necessary to be tops all time at the box office? I'm sure WB wouldn't mind having that distinction, so I guess it could be a possibility. Anyone know if that has been done before?
Last edited:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
I know there's some talk of WB re-releasing TDK for another run in IMAX theaters. Not sure if its confirmed, but I know they're talking about it.
Don't think it'll be enough to take Titanic's spot, though. As of now, TDK is only at half of Titanic's 1.9 billion. As I've said, Titanic was in theaters for 9 months, though. I'm positive TDK will break 1 billion, and if re-released into IMAX theaters, I can see it breaking 1.5 billion, and thats not even taking in future DVD sales.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
Saw it for the third time the other night with my brother and my Dad. Sink Titanic and all of that. :rockon:
In many ways, it was my favourite viewing. The entire opening sequence is excellent, but what really stood out as truly astonishing for me was the build-up for Batman's first appearance in the movie. It had much more of an effect on me this time around because I knew that he was coming and the music was perfect 'build-up' music. When Batman finally appears, to twist the copycat's gun and punch him in the face....YEAH!
But I digress...:lol:
Other than that, it was mostly the same as the other two times I've seen it. I've gotten used to the newer costume to the point where it doesn't bother me anymore, but Bale's tired lisp in some scenes (particularly the scene where Harvey is threatening to shoot Thomas Schiff, and later on in the finale) still irks me and overall, I think I'll go ahead and say that Bale's Batman scenes are only two-thirds as impressive in this movie as they were in the last. He's excellent as Bruce Wayne, which makes up for it, but he just seems tired as Batman all the time, instead of the sheer force of nature he was in Batman Begins.
Heath Ledger was excellent and while his performance will always be the one aspect of the movie that could never truly live up to the almighty hype, he still gave in my opinion, the best performance of the clown prince of crime. I've seen Heath Ledger in a ton of movies and while he had some range, studio execs usually had him playing a romantic lead, so I was used to seeing the same thing from him. Obviously Brokeback was an Earth-shattering performance (possibly better than the Joker, not definitely, but possibly) but he was still recognisably Heath Ledger. In Spider-Man, it's Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin. In X-Men, it's Ian McKellen as Magneto. Even in Batman Begins, it's Liam Neeson as the bad guy. That's usually what casual filmgoers notice and it's not unusual for them to forget the name of the character afterwards. But in The Dark Knight, you can't see Heath Ledger, (even though his face is still recognisable through the makeup), all you can see is the Joker. And it's ****ing definitive.
My Dad (who hadn't seen it yet and was eager to go after I told him that it was a bit like The Untouchables) thought it was really good and enjoyed it a lot. My Dad has a fairly good grip on the basics of Batman, but the more detailed stuff wasn't really there for him, which I actually think may have improved his enjoyment of the film. He couldn't really remember why Harvey Dent's name was so familiar until he became Two-Face later on in the movie, and it was all the more satisfying for that reason, I think. He was very impressed with Two-Face's appearance, etc.
So that's that. A good time was had by all. I don't think I'm going to watch it again until the DVD, just to savour it. Overall, I still don't know if I enjoy watching it more than Batman Begins, and while it may not be the ultimate 'Batman film', it is certainly an almost masterful 'film that features an excellent version of Batman in it'.
9.847/10
In many ways, it was my favourite viewing. The entire opening sequence is excellent, but what really stood out as truly astonishing for me was the build-up for Batman's first appearance in the movie. It had much more of an effect on me this time around because I knew that he was coming and the music was perfect 'build-up' music. When Batman finally appears, to twist the copycat's gun and punch him in the face....YEAH!
But I digress...:lol:
Other than that, it was mostly the same as the other two times I've seen it. I've gotten used to the newer costume to the point where it doesn't bother me anymore, but Bale's tired lisp in some scenes (particularly the scene where Harvey is threatening to shoot Thomas Schiff, and later on in the finale) still irks me and overall, I think I'll go ahead and say that Bale's Batman scenes are only two-thirds as impressive in this movie as they were in the last. He's excellent as Bruce Wayne, which makes up for it, but he just seems tired as Batman all the time, instead of the sheer force of nature he was in Batman Begins.
Heath Ledger was excellent and while his performance will always be the one aspect of the movie that could never truly live up to the almighty hype, he still gave in my opinion, the best performance of the clown prince of crime. I've seen Heath Ledger in a ton of movies and while he had some range, studio execs usually had him playing a romantic lead, so I was used to seeing the same thing from him. Obviously Brokeback was an Earth-shattering performance (possibly better than the Joker, not definitely, but possibly) but he was still recognisably Heath Ledger. In Spider-Man, it's Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin. In X-Men, it's Ian McKellen as Magneto. Even in Batman Begins, it's Liam Neeson as the bad guy. That's usually what casual filmgoers notice and it's not unusual for them to forget the name of the character afterwards. But in The Dark Knight, you can't see Heath Ledger, (even though his face is still recognisable through the makeup), all you can see is the Joker. And it's ****ing definitive.
My Dad (who hadn't seen it yet and was eager to go after I told him that it was a bit like The Untouchables) thought it was really good and enjoyed it a lot. My Dad has a fairly good grip on the basics of Batman, but the more detailed stuff wasn't really there for him, which I actually think may have improved his enjoyment of the film. He couldn't really remember why Harvey Dent's name was so familiar until he became Two-Face later on in the movie, and it was all the more satisfying for that reason, I think. He was very impressed with Two-Face's appearance, etc.
So that's that. A good time was had by all. I don't think I'm going to watch it again until the DVD, just to savour it. Overall, I still don't know if I enjoy watching it more than Batman Begins, and while it may not be the ultimate 'Batman film', it is certainly an almost masterful 'film that features an excellent version of Batman in it'.
9.847/10
Last edited:
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
I believe the 1.9 billion is with international sales, Titanic has about 600 million in domestic box office, which give TDK a fight chance which also should have something like 900 million with international sales. I'm not 100% on those figure, though there's only a 50% chance of that.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
I wish they'd have him re-dub his lines for the DVD release in those particular parts. It should have been done before it was released at all. For such an otherwise amazing movie, they were certainly wince-inducing failures on behalf of both Bale and Nolan (and I suppose the sound engineers as well)...something could have been done in post-production to clean that up some.
*puts on monocle, top hat, and fake handlebar mustache, then fakes 18th Century high-society English accent*
Excellent summation of Ledger's performance, sir. Excellent.
*exhales and puffs out fake mustache ends*
Last edited:
Dr.Strangefate
He Sees You When You're Sleeping. He Knows When Yo
I totally agree with all of that. Especially about redubbing the Bat-Growl. It was subtle in Begins. It's almost comedic in TDK.
Bass
Nexus of the World
I would say that Ledger doesn't even look like Ledger except for the interrogation scene. His distinctive cheek bones and jaw are really camoflagued by the scars and the smile.
I still think though, that if Ledger is nominated for an Oscar, it's best SUPPORTING actor. There isn't a LEAD role here. Javier Bardem got as much screen time in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and it's 'supporting'. This is an ensemble cast.
Secondly, if someone from TDK is nominated, it should be Gary Oldman. Ledger is SUPERB. Eckhart is WONDERFUL. Gyllenhaal is TERRIFIC. Bale (with the exception of the growl) is AWESOME.
But Gary Oldman *IS* Gordon in such a way that you don't even NOTICE him. He's a totally convincing performance. He's a huge part of the film, a major character who, when killed, is a HUGE turning point yet - he gets no cool lines. He does nothing cool. He doesn't have a cool costume, no cool makeup, and has not got a cool voice. He's just Jim ****ing Gordon.
Ledger is very subsumed in the role in a terrific fashion. Of the three costumed guys, he's the most powerful, mainly in part because the character is written so well. BUT! Ledger, while not appearing as "Ledger" appears as an actor with one hell of a performance. Your kinda aware he's an actor.
But Oldman is Gordon. Scarily so. So much so I have to remind myself he's Gary Oldman, he's so completely invisible.
To put it another way: Oldman has far, FAR less to work with than any of the big three, yet he does almost more than any of them. Think about what HE has compared to what the others have, and then realise just how indispensable his performance is and you'll see why I think his performance is the best.
But! This is like calling a photo-finish in a horse race. We're talking nanoseconds because all of these guys are terrifically talented. I think Oldman just outdoes the rest, but only just. Any of these guys performance in another film would be, without a doubt, the highest peak of the film.
They're all immensely impressive.
I still think though, that if Ledger is nominated for an Oscar, it's best SUPPORTING actor. There isn't a LEAD role here. Javier Bardem got as much screen time in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and it's 'supporting'. This is an ensemble cast.
Secondly, if someone from TDK is nominated, it should be Gary Oldman. Ledger is SUPERB. Eckhart is WONDERFUL. Gyllenhaal is TERRIFIC. Bale (with the exception of the growl) is AWESOME.
But Gary Oldman *IS* Gordon in such a way that you don't even NOTICE him. He's a totally convincing performance. He's a huge part of the film, a major character who, when killed, is a HUGE turning point yet - he gets no cool lines. He does nothing cool. He doesn't have a cool costume, no cool makeup, and has not got a cool voice. He's just Jim ****ing Gordon.
Ledger is very subsumed in the role in a terrific fashion. Of the three costumed guys, he's the most powerful, mainly in part because the character is written so well. BUT! Ledger, while not appearing as "Ledger" appears as an actor with one hell of a performance. Your kinda aware he's an actor.
But Oldman is Gordon. Scarily so. So much so I have to remind myself he's Gary Oldman, he's so completely invisible.
To put it another way: Oldman has far, FAR less to work with than any of the big three, yet he does almost more than any of them. Think about what HE has compared to what the others have, and then realise just how indispensable his performance is and you'll see why I think his performance is the best.
But! This is like calling a photo-finish in a horse race. We're talking nanoseconds because all of these guys are terrifically talented. I think Oldman just outdoes the rest, but only just. Any of these guys performance in another film would be, without a doubt, the highest peak of the film.
They're all immensely impressive.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
And that's one of the many reasons why this movie is ****ing awesome
ourchair
Well-Known Member
This is exactly how I felt about him in Batman Begins as well, and I agree: it's the actors who aren't handed the cool lines, the cool scenes and the cool costumes who have the hard work of making so little work so perfectly and work so indispensably.
Gary Oldman isn't that guy from Fifth Element playing Jim Gordon. He's not Dracula gone soft, playing Jim Gordon. He's just Jim ****ing Gordon.
