Overall? Nope. On IMDb? Yes. But if Pulp Fiction can be in the top ten, why not The Dark Knight?

I thought it was overrated. There was NO WAY it could live up to the hype in my eyes. And don't get me wrong it was very good, I just didn't see it as being the best film of the year. But this was light years ahead of Batman Begins, which I hated.

I also don't think Ledger's performance was Oscar worthy. Was it good....yes without a doubt, I just didn't see the "OMFG it was like awesome" performance everyone is raving about. I found Gary Oldman and Arron Eckhart to be better.

Hellboy II was more entertaining in my opinion.

So I take it you don't read Batman or Detective, then, yeah? Because you just perfectly described the Joker.



Oh, and I passionately disagree with every one of your points



-Doc

OK, totally not trying to be flame bait here... But I have an honest question that I have not yet developed an answer too...

What has this movie done new that sets it out as anything but a good movie... What has it revolutionized?

A few observations...

The first dark/adult comic book movie?
- Well, there are lots of mature films based on comic books. They are not all good, for sure, but I've seen darkness and seriousness in a comic book film before... Ghost World, AVP (i'd count it... loved those Dark Horse comics... movies sucked), Sin City (much darker in my opinion), From Hell, A History of Violence (awesome!), Tales from the Crypt (!), Road to Perdition...

The first mature, adult themed SUPERHERO movie
-Again, not all good, but... Spawn (it's a dark, dark character), The Punisher (even R-rated), Daredevil (I remember a lot of people at least appreciating it's darkness), the Burton Batman films (Joker killed a lot of people, shall we not forget... Penguin was a twisted creation)... heck, even X2 had Wolverine killing people pretty casually.

Summer blockbuster/event movie aimed towards adults
- Umm, well... again... Jaws, Terminator 2, Die Hard, Braveheart, Gladiator. Just to name a few that are highly received (though I detest Gladiator ) and R rated (with the exception of Jaws... which does feature, brutal violence, child being eaten by a shark, swearing, Quint's innuendos, intensity and nudity). I don't think a movie needs to be rated R to be considered "dark" or "adult" but just for the sake of this discussion I'm pointing them out. Some people seem to care about ratings...

Maybe it's just for fans of the Batman character who feel the detective finally is getting an honest screen depiction? I can buy that. And I can appreciate how it makes those fans feel. But is the film really innovative? Is it a better crime film/noir film than things like Chinatown? Double Indemnity? Notorious? The Third Man? M? Recent things like Zodiac, Se7en, Inside Man, Brick? Just some flicks off the top of my head... mostly great films in my opinion... some truly innovative and important (again IMHO).

Again, I liked TDK. Much like I liked Iron Man or Hellboy 2 this year. Heck, much like I had a great time with Speed Racer (haha, I'm the only one in the world, though ). I can't think of anything new this year that really stuck to my teeth yet... maybe Paranoid Park... but I think that was released in 2007? FWIW, I think Zodiac is the best police procedural/crime movie I have seen in some time. That movie was something I couldn't get enough of.

If we want to judge it on the other superhero movies... I'm still confident with Spidey 2 being my fav. Great tone, fun direction, amazing villain, perfectly realized and some fun action set pieces.

...let me have it

It's being praised for being a big budget summer action movie that actually entertains and has some (and requires some) thought behind it, moreso than anything else. Added to the fact that it's such a recognizable figure and they didn't go the happy meal route.

You gotta admit, most summer blockbuster spectaculars are pretty cut and dry.

No, I have...and I realize that Nolan's inspiration was parts of "The Long Halloween" and "Batman Year One". The thing is I just don't like having villains in the medium of film to not have any motivations...in a comic book it works; on the big screen - in a somewhat realistic world that Nolan created---you shouldn't have someone with lacking motivation...that's all I'm saying.

^^

I agree that there is some thought behind it... for me it didn't really blow me away with any of it's philosophy. One example that seems to be coming up in the other threads, the line about dying a hero or living long enough to become the villain isn't anything earth shattering (even for a super hero movie) and quite frankly, sounds like something I could imagine Will Smith saying. I didn't come out of the film really wanting to talk about anything but some entertaining performances and the pencil trick. I mean the themes explored here aren't all that different then ones in the recent Spiderman 3. Or even, to an extent, the X-men movies and especially Lee's Hulk... which unfortunately turns to crap. I wouldn't argue that the themes aren't explored in a mostly intelligent manor in TDK, but I didn't really get anything new from it... in fact, I think Begins is a little deeper in terms of philosophy.

I will certainly agree the plot is thick... but the pacing is off. Some of the elements felt very extraneous and unnecessarily complicated.

There aren't happy meal toys... but have you seen the Domino's commercials? Delivering pizza to the joker hideout in a car chase? You can cut out pieces out of the greasy pizza box to make a batsuit? I'd put this in the same plane as a happy meal toy... looks like Domino's just jumped on this one first.


And oh yeah, I absolutely admit that most summer blockbuster movies have been by the numbers. That is the one argument I can see for the movie... but again, I think Iron Man was pretty smart. Pixar has consistently been proving that event movies can be thought provoking, well plotted and entertaining for everyone... whilst telling a good story to boot.

The problem with looking at the IMDB rating and comparing it to other movies like Godfather is that you're comparing ratings for what is generally a different genre and a modern crowd pleaser. For many, myself included, the movie is a 10/10 and almost does everything right. That doesn't necessarily mean that in a direct comparison to the Godfather it's on the same level, but given how enjoyable it is and how much it appeals to the average fan, it isn't really a surprise.

I don't start by rating the Godfather a 10 and then rating every movie i've seen in relation to that accordingly.

Oh they were vastly superior to Spider-man 3's high school musical mentality (which oddly, was still an improvement over the power ran.. er Spider-man 1). That said, what was the last movie to give you something new to really chew on? It's certainly been a while since I've seen one, and TDK didn't necessarily fill that hole, but it did have some nice back and forths about the idea of a hero and catering to what the populous needs, rather than necessarily doing whats right. Was some of it blatantly obvious? Sure, but it still had some great undertones and ideas brewing.

I disagree with the pacing, and feel the only real excess was the trip to Hong Kong... alas, that was over with in the first quarter of the movie.

I haven't seen Wall-E yet, but I don't think I'd consider Pixar movies up to this point to be particularly thought provoking (Seen them all except Wall-E). Save for Ratatouille, Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, I've actually not been a huge fan of Pixar's work for a similar reason (they're extremely well made and I can see why people like them, but the structures, stories, and characterizations are just so damn generic.) Damn opinions, they need to stop varying so much.

I'm not saying it's the greatest movie ever made, but it is, thus far, my personal favorite comic-based movie (including Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, and Ghost World). Above all else, it was just a damn entertaining movie.

i pointed this out in another thread, but the great thing about that line is that Harvey Dent essentially ends up doing both and Batman is left somewhere in the middle. the movie intentionally deconstructs the concept expressed in that line. that was my take, anyway.

i agree with your disagreement. i thought the pacing was fantastic. i even thought the trip to Hong Kong was essential to the sweeping scope of the film. if there was anything off about the pacing, i'd say it was just that it was almost too overwhelming.

As far as the pacing is concerned... I think once I see it again some of those issues may be resolved. I saw the 12am on a Thursday... already tired from the late night before, worked all day, went to the gym and had to get up 4 hours after the movie. Though, I expected to be gripped throughout... I found myself getting antsy (but not sleepy). It's like a long road trip... first time feels like forever but when you are familiar with the route it goes smoother.

As far as my use of "thought provoking" on the Pixar films... I immediately wished I wrote "intelligent."

Different opinions are wonderful. Thoughtful discussion is part of what makes films worthwhile. In case it's not clear, I am not trying to go against the grain or be an iconoclast. I love film. All types. And yes, the idea of a best film of all time is just an impossible measure to record. I think that really goes without saying...

In terms of an example of a film that knocked me off my feet recently... you could make an argument on any film that it's been "done before," but that's not all that matters here... it's about things that illicit a reaction, things you can't get out of your head. This is only calculated on a personal scale.

Zodiac - (since I've been jerking this one off all day it seems) completely satisfying in every respect. The irony is the satisfaction comes from unsatisfactory conclusion of the case. The obsession I felt watching the movie was similar to folks looking for the killer. I wanted justice and I ached to know the truth. It was a haunting experience. Had there been other crime movies? Yeah. Even about the same killer? Sure. Did that matter? Nope, this one struck a nerve.


TDK was a good movie (if we have to attach a rating to it... like 3.5/5, probably up to a 4 on more viewings... there were no .5's in the review thread... I went with a 3 there... but it may be closer to a 4). I can understand that some people had a really strong reaction to the film... heck, my roommate is a Batman freak, he loved it. Not just fanboy love, but also, for the love of cinema.

I like to hear people explain their love for a movie, what moved them, what worked, what didn't. Almost as much as I like to go on and on about the same things

for what it's worth, i agree wholeheartedly with this assessment of Zodiac. fantastic film and just as gripping on repeated viewings.

while Batman is admittedly my favorite superhero, i am not really into comic books and never have been, so i can only really call myself a casual Batman fan, with honesty. i am, however, a pretty massive fan of great cinema. i love film far more than any particular superhero or pop culture character. and after only one viewing (so far), i really think the Dark Knight is a masterpiece.

Totally agree on Zodiac, best film from last year and one of the best I've seen in this decade. Haven't been struck by a recent film like that since Children of Men, which doesn't carry quite the same weight through repeated viewings like Zodiac does, I think, but elicits a broader cultural study after the fact.

But I haven't found a recent film that's gotten me to watch it over-and-over like a starry-eyed kid as Batman Begins has. It's the most modern, culturally-relevant superhero movie since Superman, so I'm hoping TDK lives up that.

I understand that position. But Joker did have a motivation. That line to Harvey about not planning anything, that was just more lies to get Harvey to do what J wanted. I found this Joker to be much more in keeping with "The Killing Joke." His motivation is simply to prove that he's no different than anyone else. Anyone, when pushed hard enough, will "lose it." Anyone, when suffering enough will realize the randomness, the chaos and the inherent unfair nature of life - they'll "get the joke" ("I'm just ahead of the curve...").

It's actually quite sad and desperate when you think about it - If everyone can be pushed to that breaking point, then he is not alone... he is not "broken."

The ultimate triumph would be breaking Batman, to get him "in on the joke." Batman is incorruptable. He is "an immovable object." He would be, in other words, the "ultimate get." Truly, Joker's motivation is to drive Batman to that point... to make Batman "laugh." This is beautifully demonstrated by Joker's gleeful laugh as Batman pitches him over the side of the building. The whole way down Joker is laughing. He'd gladly die at Batman's hand because then Bats will have broken his one rule, become what he beheld and would be "in on the joke." The dissapointment on his face as Batman saves him is powerfully obvious. If Joker can make Batman crazy, then he can make ANYONE crazy and his point will have been proven.

That's a pretty strong (albeit demented and insane) motivation in my humble opinion.










-Doc

I think we got plenty of Joker's motivations - to pretty much show the world that people are scum and they will turn on each other as soon as bad things happen. The ending scenario makes that perfectly clear...

While I loved Ledger and think he deserves an Oscar nod, I did think Oldman gave the best performance in the film (and also deserves a nod).

They're at least tied. Oldman was so subtle and yet dead-on. I've always loved Gordon as a character, and Oldman just cemented it. Cheers to Nolan, Oldman & co. for making up for the disastrous treatment of Gordon in the old movies by giving him the screen time and material he deserves.



-Doc

Nope. I LOVED the flick, A little too long though, but i dont know what I would cut out.

So in other words, Batman = Jesus.

Only real



-Doc

I have to agree. When Oldman is telling the child "it'll be alright", even tho' I've seen the film twice, it still makes me uncomfortable. He really sells that part. Just like when he is screaming, "WE HAVE TO SAVE DENT!! I....HAVE TO SAVE DENT!".

I have to throw in my 2 cents...I think Gary Oldman's performance is a little overrated on this board. In my opinion, he doesn't have enough to work with nor enough screen time to measure his performance.

If I was going to rank the performances...

1. Heath Ledger - Tons of credit goes to the amazing script. I don't buy into the playing a psycho means you can ham it up anyway you want.

2. Christian Bale - Loved seeing him transform into Patrick Bateman when he was playing the playboy. Thought he shined over all the highly accomplished cast.

3. Aaron Eckhart - Pretty good performance. Greatly written role. I think he was holding himself back. He's capable of going places as an actor but seemed restrained the role.

4. Gary Oldman - Not enough screen time. It was a solid subtle performance. He did wonders with Drexl in True Romance with even less screen time. Maybe it's just the role.

5. Everyone else not named Maggie Gyllenhaal - William Fichtner, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Eric Roberts

Thank you, Doc, for pretty much always saying what I want to say, and saving me the trouble of typing it out myself.

I'm also glad at see at least there's someone else who "get's it" without having to have it explained to them by someone else. But when that time comes to be the one doing the explaining, you're often a far kinder man than me providing it. So cheers to you!