The Dark Knight {Spoilers Abound}

[Langsta]

As for the movie itself, as I implied, I enjoyed it immensely. There are just too many "wow" moments to recount. I didn't find any part of the movie to be slow. Nolan has done an incredible job of showing that intense actions scenes are not the pinnacle of superhero/summer movie entertainment. The real enjoyment of the movie comes at you from a lot of different places, whether it's a perfectly framed action sequence, a brilliant turn in the story, or a great moment of insight into a character. One of the first things that struck me was a feeling that everyone had upped their ante. I remember being impressed with the caliber of acting in Begins, but everyone here just seems even more nuanced and perfect, and the dialogue loses so much of its action movie stiltedness from the first movie.

I think we've had a pretty good impression of Ledger's Joker before the movie and I believe he delivered a performance that was as great as I'd expected. That being said, I felt like I'd seen enough that his performance didn't "take over" the movie they way people say it did. I really loved the film for what it was as a whole experience rather than just one performance. But don't get me wrong. I thought he was incredible, and I agree with the Oscar talk and I think not feeling so much like he stole the show allowed me to enjoy the whole movie much more. But he had a lot of ****ing brilliant moments. The "magic trick", the explanations of his scars, and his last scene: That shot of his hanging upside down like that is just so surreal and perfect. It's a great note to leave the character on. And I did indeed feel a twinge of sadness during that scene. "We're going to be doing this for the rest of our lives." If only...

Harvey's tale was quite a tragic one. Despite the brilliance of Ledger's performance, I feel like my favorite part of the moment was the last ten or fifteen minutes. Harvey's explanation of how his perspective has changed and Gordon's "Dark Knight" monologue at the very end gave me chills. Those last scenes really wrapped the film up and sealed that "epic" feeling. I agree with the sentiment that Maggie Gyllenhall did her best and made Rachel more interesting, but that it was sort of hard to care about her. What got me was more the effect that her death has on Harvey and the sort of classically tragic nature that her letter gives their situation. Gotham City's savior and the love of his life, now she's dead and he's gone mad. I hope Harvey is dead. If he came back as just another villain it would ruin the impression that that ending leaves.

There isn't really much more to say, other than to point out that the effects were great. You've gotta love the near lack of CGI. I think my only other complaint besides Rachel still not being entirely effective is that that big action sequence in the unfinished building was overly confusing. I've never agreed with the complaints about how Nolan shoots fight scenes and I've always had an easy time following them, but I was a bit lost with that one. I had a hard time telling what was going on.

But my two complaints don't equal to much in the face of such an impressive movie. This is what truly entertaining movies should be like. Just a seamless, perfect blend of action and depth that leaves you blown away. One of the most sincerely entertaining experiences I've ever had watching a movie and just about the best I can imagine a Batman movie to be.

I have no idea how they're going to ****ing top this.

I loved when he was explaining his scars. I like how, instead of using Joker gas to make his victims laugh all the time, he just carves perpetual grins into their faces.

The action scenes were amazing. I don't really like the Harvey-Rachel relationship....I mean, he pretty much becomes Two-Face because the Joker kills her.

I'll be fine if, in the next movie, they just say that Joker is being treated at Arkham to explain his absence from the film. I only want one more movie though.

 

[ShadowPrime]

Amazing movie.... just AMAZING. I have never seen a "comic book" movie like it. Powerful, thought-provoking, smart. dark, and yet ultimately positive.

QUESTION :

Does the Joker lie to Batman about which building contained Harvey, and which contained Rachel?

I have seen the movie twice now, and here is how it played to me:

(1) Joker tells Batman the addresses where Rachel and Harvey are being held. The implication is that these two locations are widely separated, and Batman can't get to them both.
(2) Batman goes tearing from the building. Gordon yells "Which one are you going for" or words to that effect, and Batman says "Rachel".
(3) Except...Batman shows up at HARVEY's building.
(4) BOOM and BOOM.
(5) Harvey is badly burned; Gordon is knocked down by the blast at Rachel's building.

The only way this makes sense to me is if the Joker intentionally told Batman the wrong addresses...or rather, the RIGHT addresses, but reversed. Just to screw with Batman's head, I am thinking.

However, this is never raised by anyone later. Gordon doesn't comment on it, Batman doesn't comment on it, NO ONE comments on it.

SOOOO... what (if anything) am I missing, or DID the Joker lie to Batman?

Shadow

 

[Langsta]

Amazing movie.... just AMAZING. I have never seen a "comic book" movie like it. Powerful, thought-provoking, smart. dark, and yet ultimately positive.

QUESTION :

Does the Joker lie to Batman about which building contained Harvey, and which contained Rachel?

I have seen the movie twice now, and here is how it played to me:

(1) Joker tells Batman the addresses where Rachel and Harvey are being held. The implication is that these two locations are widely separated, and Batman can't get to them both.
(2) Batman goes tearing from the building. Gordon yells "Which one are you going for" or words to that effect, and Batman says "Rachel".
(3) Except...Batman shows up at HARVEY's building.
(4) BOOM and BOOM.
(5) Harvey is badly burned; Gordon is knocked down by the blast at Rachel's building.

The only way this makes sense to me is if the Joker intentionally told Batman the wrong addresses...or rather, the RIGHT addresses, but reversed. Just to screw with Batman's head, I am thinking.

However, this is never raised by anyone later. Gordon doesn't comment on it, Batman doesn't comment on it, NO ONE comments on it.

SOOOO... what (if anything) am I missing, or DID the Joker lie to Batman?

Shadow

I'm pretty sure the Joker told them the wrong addresses on purpose.

That's what Wikipedia says.

 

[Planet-man]

Everyon wants Javier Bardem based on his role in No Country; I don't. He played that character once, and he doesn't need to again.

Anton Chigurgh isn't Bane.:?

They're not even that much alike, and No Country has no specific part in me wanting him to play Bane other than that it brought him to my attention in a big way.

I want Javier Bardem to play Bane because he's a large, chisled man of South American appearance and is an excellent actor..... all the traits I've been looking for in a Bane for years but never saw satisfied until Javier came onto the scene. I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't play him.... he's like he was made to play the role, straight out of the stories.

I thought his performance was a lot better than people who have WON Oscars before.

I hope we're not grading on the curve here. If we nominated everyone who was better than Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls the Oscars would become a farce(and god forbid that ever happen). Not everybody who wins an Oscar deserves one and there are a lot of politics and unfairness involved.

Acting-wise and treating the Oscars as some sort of ideal award of truth, I don't think his performance deserved an Oscar nomination because I could see all the machinations of acting in it and I think a great deal of actors could've done the part just as easily.

Of course, ironically, we actually ARE grading on a curve here as there have to be at least five Best Supporting Actor nominations this year, so hypothetically there could only be four performances as good or better than him this whole year and he would end up "deserving" one!

 

[Langsta]

I hope we're not grading on the curve here. If we nominated everyone who was better than Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls the Oscars would become a farce(and god forbid that ever happen). Not everybody who wins an Oscar deserves one and there are a lot of politics and unfairness involved.

Acting-wise and treating the Oscars as some sort of ideal award of truth, I don't think his performance deserved an Oscar nomination because I could see all the machinations of acting in it and I think a great deal of actors could've done the part just as easily.

Of course, ironically, we actually ARE grading on a curve here as there have to be at least five Best Supporting Actor nominations this year, so hypothetically there could only be four performances as good or better than him this whole year and he would end up "deserving" one!

Yes, but out of all the performances you've seen so far this year, would you say his is the best? He's dedicated to the role completely, and is almost unrecognizable when he is in the character.





I actually don't want that Reese guy to appear next time around....I like to think of it as just a nod to the comics, like when Lucius Fox tells Batman that the new costume will "fight off cats" or whatever (Catwoman).

 

[Planet-man]

Yes, but out of all the performances you've seen so far this year, would you say his is the best?

No, I'd say that's probably Brendan Gleeson in In Bruges, which contained a lot more emotion and subtlety and stuff that's far harder to tap into and eminate than this version of Joker character, and after Gleeson probably Downey's Tony Stark, because he was so convincing and natual that for the first two minutes I was wondering how much of the dialogue he was ad-libbing and after that I forgot I was watching someone act at all. That's exactly what a performance should do. With Heath Ledger here, I was always aware I was watching him act, and could see all the little acting going on, and I never forgot he wasn't a person but a character being acted out by somebody else. It was a very entertaining and engaging performance, the most in a while, and I always wanted him back on screen when he wasn't. It just wasn't a masterful piece of acting.

He's dedicated to the role completely,

I agree.

and is almost unrecognizable when he is in the character.

I disagree.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Are you saying that you thought Downey as Iron Man was better than Ledger as the Joker?!?!

 

[Planet-man]

The Dark Knight is "officially" the #1 movie of all time.

:lol:

The Godfather's been knocked out of the top spot for the first time in 5 years(since LOTR: Return of the King did it). While I think it's ridiculous, I'm also kind of pleased to see The Godfather take a break from the top.

Also, it's the #1 by a fairly wide margin.... 9.5 to the Godfather's 9.1, and this is among "regular voters".... Yikes.

 

[Gemini]

wow, just earlier today it was #3

#1

wow

 

[Planet-man]

Are you saying that you thought Downey as Iron Man was better than Ledger as the Joker?!?!

I don't know about "better", I'm just saying that I think acting-wise it was a more skilled performance(with a wider range of emotions) that convinced me and made me believe I was watching a person and not an actor playing a person. I really liked Heath Ledger's Joker and I always wanted him back on screen when he was off. I just don't think it was an epic of acting skills or believability.

For the billionth time.

 

[Gemini]

I don't know about "better", I'm just saying that I think acting-wise it was a more skilled performance(with a wider range of emotions) that convinced me and made me believe I was watching a person and not an actor playing a person. I really liked Heath Ledger's Joker and I always wanted him back on screen when he was off. I just don't think it was an epic of acting skills or believability.

For the billionth time.

RDJ was just playing himself though, you look at Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he was practically the same fricking person. Dozen's of actors do this, Will Smith, Jack Black, Samuel L. Jackson, I could go on. They just play themselves, and thats not acting.

Heath actually acted in this, he didn't sound like himself, he didn't move like himself, he was The Joker, he wasn't Heath Ledger as The Joker

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

RDJ was just playing himself though, you look at Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he was practically the same fricking person. Dozen's of actors do this, Will Smith, Jack Black, Samuel L. Jackson, I could go on. They just play themselves, and thats not acting.

Heath actually acted in this, he didn't sound like himself, he didn't move like himself, he was The Joker, he wasn't Heath Ledger as The Joker

Agreed.

 

[moonmaster]

RDJ was just playing himself though

Just about to point that out.

I love Robert Downey Jr. and I think he's a phenomenal actor and I honestly think he did a great job in Iron Man but a large part of why he was so perfect was because Tony Stark is not very far from his own personality. It's kind of ridiculous to say that he was stretched more as an actor than Ledger.

 

[Langsta]

RDJ was just playing himself though, you look at Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he was practically the same fricking person. Dozen's of actors do this, Will Smith, Jack Black, Samuel L. Jackson, I could go on. They just play themselves, and thats not acting.

Heath actually acted in this, he didn't sound like himself, he didn't move like himself, he was The Joker, he wasn't Heath Ledger as The Joker

It annoys me how Will Smith plays the same thing in every movie.

Ledger's Australian accent was untraceable in his performance as the Joker.

 

[Random]

RDJ was just playing himself though, you look at Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he was practically the same fricking person. Dozen's of actors do this, Will Smith, Jack Black, Samuel L. Jackson, I could go on. They just play themselves, and thats not acting.

Heath actually acted in this, he didn't sound like himself, he didn't move like himself, he was The Joker, he wasn't Heath Ledger as The Joker

It's acting if they can portray that cause, make the audience feel or at least understand the character. They just don't have a great range. Doesn't make them any less of an actor.

But Heath made me shiver in fear and sit at the edge of my seat, that give a plus to any performance I've seen this year

 

[Planet-man]

I disagree that playing yourself means you're not acting. The emotions Downey was conveying in that movie, as himself or Stark, were still part of a performance, an enactment of something that didn't really happen to him. He convinced me that he was feeling them seamlessly and to the point where I forgot I was watching an actor. With Ledger, with a few exceptions, I didn't forget it was an actor putting on a detailed and intense performance and not an actual person.

 

[Gemini]

Just about to point that out.

I love Robert Downey Jr. and I think he's a phenomenal actor and I honestly think he did a great job in Iron Man but a large part of why he was so perfect was because Tony Stark is not very far from his own personality. It's kind of ridiculous to say that he was stretched more as an actor than Ledger.

exactly, all Downey had to do was think about how he'd react in whatever situation, Ledger had to think about how this version of the character would act, and considering all the different inspirations he took for the part (Johnny Rotten, Alex DeLarge, etc.), that is quiet a feet.

 

[Langsta]

exactly, all Downey had to do was think about how he'd react in whatever situation, Ledger had to think about how this version of the character would act, and considering all the different inspirations he took for the part (Johnny Rotten, Alex DeLarge, etc.), that is quiet a feet.

Feat.

 

[Planet-man]

Just about to point that out.

I love Robert Downey Jr. and I think he's a phenomenal actor and I honestly think he did a great job in Iron Man but a large part of why he was so perfect was because Tony Stark is not very far from his own personality. It's kind of ridiculous to say that he was stretched more as an actor than Ledger.

He was still playing a greater emotional range. He had to show real fear, anger, elation, attraction-contemplating-on-love, etc. Heath just had to do a fairly well-worn take on crazy.

Ledger's Australian accent was untraceable in his performance as the Joker.

Not the same thing as acting. Otherwise Jimmy Fallon would be a better actor than everyone involved here.:lol:

 

[Gemini]

It's acting if they can portray that cause, make the audience feel or at least understand the character. They just don't have a great range.

Yeah about as much range as a Tetherball

I disagree that playing yourself means you're not acting. The emotions Downey was conveying in that movie, as himself or Stark, were still part of a performance, an enactment of something that didn't really happen to him. He convinced me that he was feeling them seamlessly and to the point where I forgot I was watching an actor. With Ledger, with a few exceptions, I didn't forget it was an actor putting on a detailed and intense performance and not an actual person.

An actor, portray's a character, RDJ wasn't playing Tony Stark he was playing RDJ if he had become a billionaire, and never got stuck on drugs.

RDJ and Tony Stark were similar enough that the line between one and the other could be blurred easily.

Feat.

you know i typed that first, and I took a second look at it and it didn't look right.....I guess I should go with my gut