mdc3000

It is definitely the mix because I've seen it twice in 2 different theatres and found that the music in the first 15 minutes and last few minutes is SO LOUD that you really have to strain to hear the much lower dialogue... it seems to be intentional, but I really think they needed to boost the dialogue just a touch...I mean, the music IS awesome, but I kept thinking 'shit, this dialogue is really low'...

Shoveler

Actually, I thought of Brother Eye when Lucius started questioning Bruce about some (I forget the wording) extensive expenditures he had found, and Bruce made some comment about a government telecommunications project and asked him to drop it. Of course, now that Lucius has shown Bruce how to pull the cell phone trick, it would only make sense for Bruce to incorporate it into this secret project (assuming it is a batman project and not a government project). There is no way Batman would forfeit that kind of knowledge/ability, no matter what he wants Lucius to think.

Carcaridon

I've read a few interviews with Nolan and he's said each time that this is a trilogy of movies and that's it. Both he and Bale have said that there's not going to be a Robin in the movies. Bale said so much as he'd leave if that happened as the character is "lame", according to him.

Draven

This makes no sense. Did you not see Batman Begins? This was a continuation of the story. If you liked Begins, you couldn't possibly have HATED DK. And if you didn't like Begins, why on earth would you go to the sequel?

I'd understand if you just didn't care for it. But to actually regret going, when the movie improved on the previous in nearly every way and has been met with near universal acclaim, smacks of "contrary to be contrary".

GIjon213

After seeing this on Friday night, we came back home and watched the original Batman. It was more than apples and oranges, it was night and day. Seeing a bight yellow emblem on Batman's chest had me laughing, to tell the truth. Nolan's Joker trumps Burton's IMPO, with one feeling truly psychotic, and the other one more of a clown with a gun. Now don't get me wrong, I love Batman, Batman Returns, and I actually like Forever, but the re-imaging of the Joker blew me away, and truthfully creeped me out.

I do agree with 'Gotham' looking more like a regular city and not the fictional metropolis that it is supposed to be. Even the change between Begins and TDK is painfully obvious, but in no way a real detraction for me.

fumanstan

When we last saw Scarecrow in Begins, he was in the narrows on a horse and was hit with the taser type thing by Rachel and rode off screaming (like a little girl). I don't think he was insane, although he was hit with a dose earlier and was in Arkham but freed.

argh923

Where did you come up with that? He was dealing drugs, the Batman copycats were there, he could tell instantly they weren't the real Batman, and then the real one showed up.

Given that they had to innoculate the entire section of the city that was infected with the cure, and given his connections, it's not even remotely out of the question that someone would have vaccinated Crane.

bunkaroo

Saw this yesterday afternoon on a fairly large but non-IMAX screen.

I was concerned the action scenes would look like they were modified for 2.35 but everything looked great. In fact I'd rather have a constant ratio for the Blu-Ray but it sounds like they will go with the shifting ratios a la IMAX. I'm going to try and see the IMAX version Thursday afternoon.

On the film, at less than 24 hours it still hasn't all sunk in yet. So many things to like about it.

And BTW, spoiler tags at this point are silly IMO in a thread about the film, so you're warned.

I was actually surprised we didn't see more Joker than we did, but his presence was always there, pulling the strings. I had no problems with Two-Face not emerging until later on. Two-Face becomes a secondary villain which is fine - the concept of the character is kind of a one-trick pony IMO. I liked the way his face was done, but wouldn't he need an eyelid? If not I think he'd be constantly squirting eyedrops - not the most intimidating trait for a villain.

Joker was great; no doubt. However, I don't see an Oscar win. Probably a nomination. Depends on what other performances come during Oscar season.

Definitely felt like there were abrupt cuts. Early on when Joker has the knife in Michael Jai White's mouth, it jumps abruptly to him being dead. That's just one instance I remember. I really hope there's a longer R-rated version for home video.

On Gordon's ruse, I have to admit I bought into it. I wasn't even thinking about the trailers at that point. I remember hearing major characters would die, so I thought that was it with him. Although once you see the Dent convoy and the way they play the scene with him driving, it's kind of obvious.

I loved how the semi was flipped. The commercials made it look like an explosion or shooting does it, which seemed kind of hokey. But the actual way it happens is pretty frickin' cool. Batpod was great.

Loved the ending narration, with the Dark Knight contrasting the white knight. I know it's kind of simple, but it's effective IMO.

Regarding where we go from here, I think there absolutely has to be a third film, regardless of how perfect this one might be. Batman is on the run and his reputation is going to be in the shitcan - it can't be left that way. There has to be a redemption chapter. Once they do a third then they can leave it stand as it is. As far as villains, I don't really care too much because I trust Nolan to come up with something good regardless.

Already feeling the itch to see it again - I can't believe I had the patience to wait until Saturday.

Doughboy

I thought about that, but it still contradicts what he said about Rachel and what the toxin would do to her. And Batman gave him the same dose a few minutes later. Hell, Scarecrow even says later in the movie that "Dr. Crane isn't here right now, but if you'd like make an appointment...". The implication being that his mind is gone.

stingermck

Scarecrow made the toxin, if anyone can survive it, its him.

argh923

Well, if you want to go that route, then the entire final act contradicts what he said about Rachel, since there's tons of people that were infected by the toxin, and were apparently all cured.

bunkaroo

Perhaps he's just a highly functional insane psychopath?

Isn't the implication there from the first film that the Joker was created in the Narrows by the toxin? He's obviously still able to function on an intelligent level - he's just batshit crazy.

Supermallet

Wait, what? I never got that implication. I think the implication is that Batman's presence inspired The Joker to become who he is, not a dose of fear toxin.

TheMovieman

Well, we don't know what created The Joker. I doubt The Joker knows how he came to be anymore. In TDK he had two different stories on how he got the scars, the only commonality was that he has father issues.

mdc3000

^I never thought they implied that the Joker was created by the toxin. I also think Scarecrow is in this movie so little, it's impossible to tell if he's insane or not. He's not flipping out crazy in his minute of screen time but who's to say this wasn't a rare moment of clarity

Supermallet

Um, no. The first story was about his father. The second was about his wife. Presumably neither are true.

OldBoy

it's like i just have this driving urge to see it again and get more out of it if that is possible. you know be a little more relaxed, maybe not go with anyone, know what is coming and just take it in and let it penetrate more than the 1st viewing. usually i can wait till DVD, but since i have seen Begins more times than any other movie in the past 3 years, i just want more!

bunkaroo

Maybe implication wasn't the right word to use. I was just thinking about the possibility Joker became the person he now is during the events of Batman Begins in the Narrows. I probably wouldn't have thought about it that way if they hadn't mentioned Joker at the end of BB.

It's equally possible his emergence is simply coinciding with those events, or using those events as an opportunity.

Gizmo

That's exactly what I thought. No way is it the toxin from the first film.

clemente

This was one the goosebump moments for me in the theater. Its kind of obvious - but I guess I wasn't paying attention or hadn't though of it - but when Gordon said that, it was just perfect.

TheMovieman

I was talking about the scars. In the first story, he said his father gave him the scars. The second he said that he gave himself those scars because his wife had scars... It seemed as if in the second story that he had a flawless face and only disfigured it for his wife.

RichC2

Yeah, that's the point, you don't know when he's telling the truth.. if he ever was. Did he get the scars from his dad? Did he give himself the scars to please his wife? Was he full of shit both times?

TheMovieman

Yeah, I know. I don't think The Joker knows anymore...

chris_sc77

This was interesting when he gave differing explanations.
It reminded me of Funny Games.

My Other Self

The multiple explanations just show Joker's mentality. He changed the story to fit the moment. I'm sure if he told the guy he sliced his face open the wife story, it wouldn't have been as effective to us at least.