The Dark Knight

[Auron]

(though they still retained a PG-13 rating, though I think DK was probably close to bordering to the R rating).

You know that if they showed half they things they panned the camera away from, it would have been.

[X-3]

or something that is just absolutely awful (X-3).

I'm not that bad. :(
(also, curses upon that movie for cursing my name argh)

Still haven't seen it yet, might not for a while.

Something about a previous thing, regarding Ledger:

Spoiler.

They're not going to bring back the Joker. They respect Ledger a lot, apparently. I can't really see them hiring someone to replace him...

[Lurch1982]

What I think works:

Spoiler.

Gotham City itself. The choice to basically film the entire movie in Chicago really helped create a better environment for Gotham. It actually feels like a living breathing city, unlike the version seen in prior batman movies (Where you have a bunch of fog, neon lights and bull**** that just doesn't look real). The city looks genuine, and it helps with the type of world Nolan created in the series.

Character style, direction, and overall feel: basically, I think Nolan nailed this in the first movie. They went as far away from the 1990s version of Batman, where it eventually degressed into something very close to the idiotic 1960s show (which is only good if you're not sober), and instead created a world that felt real. You don't see outlandish clothes and bull**** on normal peolpe, you don't see nipples and buttcracks on the batsuit, you don't see obnoxious city designs that clearly look like soundstages devoid of extras (see above for city comments). In BB and B K, you get a darker, more realistic world. Nolan deals with the actual mob element (not really touched since Batman 1989), and really didn't get into the "Supervillain" concept until the second movie. This worked, and it built on the theme of "escalation" introduced in the first movie.

I think a really good thing Nolan did was make it so the movie simply does not end happily. Harvey is dead. Mediocre female supporting character is dead (thank you god, she sucked). Batman is pinned for essentially being an enemy. The cops are now after him. Gordon became commissioner only by stepping over a pile of bodies, and Gotham is probably worse off than it was before the movie started. Compare this to almost every other superhero movie, where the female lead never dies or is ever in any real danger, the hero comes out on top and everyone loves him at the end, and everything is better as the sun crests over the city and an American Flag.

Nolan's depiction of Batman in his two movies is the film equivalent for super heros that Frank Miller's Dark Knight series and his Daredevil run as well as Alan Moore's The Killing Joke and Watchmen were for comics in general. It'll probably change the way other writer/directors will approach the subject. They'll at least do some deep research (these cribbed off of Batman Year 1 and the Long Halloween, while Ledger admitted to reading the Killing Joke as part of his role prep).

I think Bale nailed the roles on both sides. He actually legitimately presented the internal problem with Batman/Bruce Wayne, especially concerning the theme of "Gotham's protector." I thought it was interesting when they threw out the Caesar comparisons and used Dent as a potential "White Knight" that would eliminate the need for a Batman. I think the difference between Bale as BW/Batman and the others before him is that the others never really reflected the type of toll a dual life would have on the body and mind. Like Clooney as Batman? He had the smirk the entire time. He never looked like he would legitimately be in danger. Same for Val Kilmer and Michael Keaton. Bale gets banged up, shot, stabbed, slashed, bitten, burned, etc. He messes up (dealing with the "new hero" approach), and he has to deal with guilt, torment, failure, etc that most other superhero movies simply ignore or don't handle.

The Joker: I like this depiction of the Joker. He's basically insane, and he throws out a chaos contrast to Batman's sense of order. The way they started to work in the duality relationship between Batman's order/good and the Joker's chaos/evil was great, and the development of the Joker's code of not killing Batman because then he wouldn't have anything to go against was a good thematic development. I think this was a good way to handle a character like the Joker in a hyper-realistic way. Instead of making him look like some sort of ****ty party performer, they made him look like, I don't know, something you'd see in the punk music movement. Messed up hair, crappy makeup, random clothes, etc and basically completely insane. He didn't really operate with a set gang and would either recruit low level criminals (and usually kill them) or use insane people (and usually kill them). The gradual takeover from the mob was interesting, and they used him not as an equal but as a hired gun that they reluctantly hired. It's better than just having him show up as some massively established supercriminal with a hideout, massive gang network and wielding a massive amount of power.

What didn't work:

Spoiler.

Rachael: She was terrible. It isn't the actress, it's the role. I get it, Bruce Wayne <3s her, but apparently ignored her since the last movie. Ok? She was just a drain on screentime, and I was glad she died so we won't have to see her in a movie again.

The ending: Killing Harvey was a bad move IMO, especially in the wake of Ledger's death. Keeping the Joker alive solved a problem the 90s Batman movies ran into (evaporating villain pool due to killing them all), but killing Two-Face robbed the character of a fullblown movie. There's a ton of potential to use Harvey as a full-blown villain in a movie, especially if you show him eliminating/taking over the mafia. Hell, after Ledger died, I probably would have recut the movie to indicate that Dent is still alive. The problem with the Joker being alive and Ledger not being alive is that its going to be very hard to recast the role in any future installments. Ledger set the bar a little too high, and I really don't see anyone getting the role down half as good. They'd almost have to totally redo the character.

Inevitable sequal: WB sees way too much money to not jam another sequel into the pipes. Multiple questions: Will Nolan keep doing them? Will Bale keep doing them? What villain to use? etc etc. I kind of hope they just don't make another one. Let it go out on top. Modern Hollywood though? Not bloody likely.

Spoiler.

They're not going to bring back the Joker. They respect Ledger a lot, apparently. I can't really see them hiring someone to replace him...

Problem is you run into a depth issue with Batman's villain portfolio. Most simply aren't going to translate well to the screen in Nolan's depiction, and the only ones normal people have heard of are the Joker, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, and Catwoman. Apparently Sam Rami didn't want to use Venom, but Sony/Columbia forced that one on his hands. When you're dealing with near automatic hits, you're going to start seeing studio interferance.

Plus there's always the chance, especially after that movie, of a backlash against the insanely dark, realistic approach to Batman and other superheros.

[Greenmarioman]

Saw it, I give it a 8 out of 10.

[Erdawn Il Deus]

^Venom could have been skipped over, but The Sandman is the lamest villain ever conceived and Spider Man 3 absolute garbage. The next installement, when considered, is supposed to deal with the hunt for Batman and may cast the Riddler as a villain, although I wouldn't mind seeing the Penguin. The thing about this series is it can't go to outlandish lenghts with its characters - you can't have Killer Croc or even Mister Freeze running around because it kind of tramples the realism element. Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin, anyone? You have to deal with the psychological cases - which Nolan is doing very well thus far.

As an aside, although Ledger's unfortunate death does throw up an obstacle for a re-cast of the Joker, I'm open to say, Robin Williams taking up the role a few movies down the road with Joker having been in Arkham for a while.

[Erdawn Il Deus]

"You don't understand. .. I really didn't want to leave you any clues. I really planned never to go back to Arkham Asylum. But I left you a clue anyway. So I... I have to go back there. Because I might need help. I... I might actually be crazy."

What's with this Riddler hate-on?

[Valigarmander]

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who didn't like Rachel.

[Lurch1982]

^Venom could have been skipped over, but The Sandman is the lamest villain ever conceived and Spider Man 3 absolute garbage. The next installement, when considered, is supposed to deal with the hunt for Batman and may cast the Riddler as a villain, although I wouldn't mind seeing the Penguin. The thing about this series is it can't go to outlandish lenghts with its characters - you can't have Killer Croc or even Mister Freeze running around because it kind of tramples the realism element. Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin, anyone? You have to deal with the psychological cases - which Nolan is doing very well thus far.

As an aside, although Ledger's unfortunate death does throw up an obstacle for a re-cast of the Joker, I'm open to say, Robin Williams taking up the role a few movies down the road with Joker having been in Arkham for a while.

I thought Rami should have stuck with Sandman as a subplot and focused more on the Harry/Peter Parker storyline. Build up Venom for SM4 if anything at all. But they managed to just tard up the whole works, so we're going into a SM4 and 5 with a dead Venom, dead Harry, dead Norman, dead Doc Ock, and essentially running into the same problem the Batman movies in the 1990s ran into (no more good villains). Vulture? Kinda lame. Scorpion? Not exactly something that carries the movie. Same with the Lizard. Kingpin could, but there's probably some legal reason tied with the Daredevil franchise. Wouldn't be shocked if Sony just tapped the option for 4/5 to keep it from reverting to Marvel.

The only way I'd see the Penguin work is if they basically redo the character as a mob boss and lost the bird fetish and trick umbrellas. Even still, I'm not sure how he would really could be a focal villain if you went with the aristocratic "gentleman" mob boss version of the Penguin (as opposed to the freakshow version).

Robin Williams as the Joker would be downright unbearable, and there's pretty much 0% chance of him doing it in Ledger's style.

[Valigarmander]

Robin Williams as The Joker?

Dear Lord, no. He's good at playing drag-queens and gay genies, not murderous clowns.

[ashemas]

Just saw it tonight...holy freaking crap, best movie I have seen in a long while.

I do agree that nobody can replace Ledger...he simply beat them all in terms of acting. It's really a shame that he left.

[Bomby]

Saw it today. As I expected, good movie, but forgive me for expecting better with all the hype.

But before I get into the Dark Knight, first trailers:

Bolt - Looks cute, I guess.
The Spirit - This looks absolutely horrible. Frank Miller needs Robert Rodriguez, or someone who knows what he's doing.
Watchmen - Also looks pretty bad, though not so much as The Spirit. Keep in mind it comes from the same wretched hands that made that crapfest 300.
Body of Lies - Might be interesting, actually.
Quantum of Solace - Casino Royale was the best Bond in a long time, let's hope this one doesn't stink it up.
Terminator Salvation - Nothing really to judge here. Just a teaser.

Now, for our feature presentation. Please turn off all cell phones.

Spoiler.

The only shot that really impressed me that much was the shot of Joker blowing up the hospital. The rest of the cinematography, for the most part, was very much made with Hollywood's cookie cutter. I feel like I could've directed that fight scene in the parking ramp where Batman first appears a lot better myself. I was glad to see that rapid cutting wasn't as over utilized as it is in more Hollywood action films. Some of the music could've been placed better in the first half of the film, or had not been there at all. However, this problem seemed to fix itself by the second half. The lighting and color were excellent, as expected, and probably the most well done part of the film.

As far as the script goes, it could've done without all that cheesy babble in the beginning about "Hey, who is that Joker guy?" I started to worry that the film would be filled with such nonsense. Thankfully, it ended quickly.

Heath Ledger did a great job acting. I'm not sure if I liked Maggie Gyllenhaal, but I wasn't a big fan of Katie Holmes, either. Christian Bale is still kind of corny, but he improved over Batman Begins. I love that Edison Chen's over hyped Hollywood debut turned out to be a three second cameo in which you can barely see his face. Good luck getting recognized, and remember to store your dirty pictures on an external hard drive next time your computer needs cleaning.

The ending was somewhat ambiguous. I would like to think of this as an artistic choice, but I know how Hollywood works - this is just setting up for a sequel. Unless they can get Philip Seymour Hoffman to play the villain next time, there's no point in making one.

Hey, it worked for the Mission Impossible series.

Final verdict: 4/5. Could've been more affective if they hadn't been trying to secure a PG-13 rating. Sin City is still the best Hollywood comic adaptation in my book. However, all comic book adaptations pale in comparison to the grand king of the genre, Park Chan-Wook's Oldboy, which is actually more well known than the Japanese manga it's base off of. I recommend the latter to anyone who doesn't want me to pull their teeth out with the nail removing end of a hammer.

[Dr. Furball]

I gotta say, Jim Gordon was always one of my favorite characters, and now, thanks to this movie, he's now up there with Batman himself.
Am I the only one that

Spoiler.

did NOT see Two-face coming? I knew that Dent was going to be in it, but I didn't think that they were gonna go with the transformation until the third movie.

[Sean P Kelly]

Saw it last night, thought it was very good.

Now about that third sequel talk.

First, it is CONFIRMED that there will be a third film. The main actors all already signed. Christopher Nolan doesn't commit to films, but is likely to return.

Here is a paragraph from wikipedia that talks about possible villains (and the actors playing them):

Nolan is not committed to another sequel, explaining that he does not normally line up projects after completing a film. Gary Oldman is confident Nolan will return, and Bale said he would return if Nolan did. Oldman hinted in the third film Gordon would have to hunt down Batman. He has also mentioned that the villain of the upcoming film may be The Riddler. Nolan explained that as long as he is directing, he is not including Robin in the franchise because Bale is portraying a "young Batman", which meant "Robin's not for a few films". Nolan jokingly listed Frankie Muniz as a potential choice, if the studio forced him to cast. Bale joked "I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work" if Robin is introduced.

In addition, Nolan considered the Penguin difficult to portray on film, explaining, "There are certain characters that are easier to mesh with the more real take on Batman we're doing. The Penguin would be tricky." Christina Ricci, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Kate Beckinsale have shown interest in playing Catwoman, while David Tennant wishes to play the Riddler. Prior to the release of The Dark Knight in 2008, David Goyer ruled out using the Penguin or Catwoman as a villain in a future film, prefering to use antagonists from the comic that had not yet been portrayed on the big screen. After Heath Ledger's death in January 2008, it is unknown whether the Joker will return for a third film, be recast, or retired out of respect for Ledger.

I'm personally vouching for The Riddler and, keeping up with the more realistic tone of this series, I would like him to be a more cerebral Riddler than we have ever seen before (i.e. not Joker-lite). Also, in keeping with the realistic tone, I think they should go with the green jacket and bowler hat look instead of the skin-tight jumpsuit and mask look.

I would also like to see The Penguin, but that would only happen if Nolan changes his mind (what's so tricky about a chubby guy in a tuxedo -- must be the pointed nose).

Another thing about the film that is going to be bothering me until (hopefully) the DVD special features:

Spoiler.

How much of Two-Face's burnt face was make-up and how much was digital manipulation?

[United Nations]

^

Spoiler.

Well, I know before the movie, the Nolan said there was more digital manipulation in one character's face than in the rest of the film.

[Sean P Kelly]

^

Spoiler.

For sure, some things (such as the exposed mouth muscles and the un-socketed eye) were obviously digitaly manipulated, but I just want to know whether there was some make-up or if Eckhart just spent a lot of time wearing a green mask.

[Jesus]

The movie really did get the story right on, while having that very dark side. I hope to see Batman Beyond be the next movie. You know, where an intern takes up the job of Batman after Bruce Wayne retired from it.

Spoiler.

That's what I felt was being hinted at least when you hear all the dialogue about "not needing batman anymore" and when they send the hounds out on him at the end. Two Face is dead now so I don't think we'll see him again.

[WvsW, please be aware of what should and shouldn't be in spoiler tags. Whenever you're unsure, it's always a good idea to lean on the side of caution. ~SML]

[Calamity Panfan]

The movie really did get the story right on, while having that very dark side. I hope to see Batman Beyond be the next movie. You know, where an intern takes up the job of Batman after Bruce Wayne retired from it.

Spoiler.

That's what I felt was being hinted at least when you hear all the dialogue about "not needing batman anymore" and when they send the hounds out on him at the end. Two Face is dead now so I don't think we'll see him again.

[WvsW, please be aware of what should and shouldn't be in spoiler tags. Whenever you're unsure, it's always a good idea to lean on the side of caution. ~SML]

Spoiler.

Most of the "not needing Batman" stuff came before the Two-Face incident. Bruce thought that Dent would be their White Knight. He was the hero of Gotham, and didn't need a mask. Batman's still going to fight crime. And we know what happened to him.

Also, am I the only one who liked Eckhart almost as much as Ledger?

[Valigarmander]

I thought Eckhart did an excellent job as well.

[Sean P Kelly]

Ditto

The movie really did get the story right on, while having that very dark side. I hope to see Batman Beyond be the next movie. You know, where an intern takes up the job of Batman after Bruce Wayne retired from it.

Spoiler.

That's what I felt was being hinted at least when you hear all the dialogue about "not needing batman anymore" and when they send the hounds out on him at the end. Two Face is dead now so I don't think we'll see him again.

[WvsW, please be aware of what should and shouldn't be in spoiler tags. Whenever you're unsure, it's always a good idea to lean on the side of caution. ~SML]

Spoiler.

All the ending did was revert Batman back to being the shadowy hero of Batman Begins than the overtly public hero of this film.

[CaptHayfever]

Robin Williams as The Joker?

Dear Lord, no. He's good at playing drag-queens and gay genies, not murderous clowns.

Um, Death to Smoochy was excellent.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"