Dark Knight Review Pending (Major SPOILERS)

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:47 pm

It makes batman begins look as silly as batman and robin, it's fuckinggg great

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:38 pm

Dreadnought wrote:Subfag, what I wanted to say is that Dark Knight wouldn't be sold out if Heath Fagger was still alive.

I disagree. You're talking about a sequel that was already critically acclaimed, including Heath Ledger's performance, and I read quite a few reviews that felt he should've gotten an Oscar for it. There were enough people who really liked the first one, and many more who heard the "hype" about the sequel and so went to see it.

I saw it with a buddy at the last showing of Friday night (10:30) and that's only because we bought tickets online. When we originally showed up at 8, the 8:30 and 9:30 showings were already sold out. There were only two of us, and it was hard finding 2 seats together. Some retards came 4-6 in a group and had to split up. (This I blame on poor management, if a theater is sold out, a manager needs to come in and have everybody move to the end of the row to find out how many seats are left btw)

I do agree that *some* of the hype/popularity was due to all the buzz about heath ledger, good and bad, but not enough to have the smashing weekend The Dark Knight is having.

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:28 pm

If he was so good in Dark Knight, then why did he anhero himself? Explain. Now.

Subhuman · Post by **Subhuman** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:46 pm

What cazsim said - this movie was getting crazy hype before Ledger offed himself, although once he did the buzz level naturally went up a few notches. That's when all the Oscar talk started kicking into high gear, too. (I think he'll get a nomination but he won't win.)

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:19 pm

Dreadnought wrote:If he was so good in Dark Knight, then why did he anhero himself? Explain. Now.

Because he was drugged up and a "method actor" in the joker's part? Or maybe he just wanted to kill himself?

Why does anyone do thattt uh? Why haven't you? Same mysteryyy

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:28 pm

from what I've heard lately, the guy needed some sleep. He just (like many anonymous nobodies (spl?) out there) didn't think, first.

I've heard rumours that Jack Nicholson couldn't sleep for a while after playing the original Joker, but that's not confirmed (by me).

I've also heard that he plays another madman in his last film here, and that Johnny Depp took over the last little bit, but that's also not confirmed.

So, the guy plays two crazies in a row, has trouble sleeping, and is so exhausted or whatever that he mixes some wrong stuff. A friend last night had already drank a bunch of vodka and decided they wanted a couple aspirin, then told me afterward.

Personally, I'd just keep the headache rather than risk it, but apparently they thought it was okay. Maybe Ledger did, too?

Good enough explanation?

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:35 pm

I have one question:

Is the camera work as big a shitfest as in the first one?

Just watched Hancock, and I got so pissed halfway through the movie due to the shitty camera-work..

I can understand a camera moving during an action scene, I don't like it, I don't want it, but I understand the motion.

But when two people are in a livingroom just talking, then why the hell is the camera-man trying to make it look like "WOW YOU ARE HEAR AND LAJK SEENG DEM MOVE DER LIPS AN SHIET!"

Leave it to Hollywood to fuck up movies if there's even a hint of a decent script...

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:37 pm

The camerawork was pretty bueno IMO, I could tell what was going on all the time, unlike Transformers, if that's what you mean?

The only camerawork I can think of right now that I don't like is when there's a stationary conversation and the camera starts moving around a corner or through a hall and blocking your view of who's talking.

Maybe it's just the old stage actor coming out, but it doesn't feel right not to be able to see the people talking, and having the camera move for no other reason than to have the camera move.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:41 pm

Well in Hancock it was bouncing, not around corners or anything, but just so obviously handheld...

In the first Batman, it was truly horrible during all the fightscenes, the one in the temple being the best/worst example, where he was dodging in and out between the other students. I don't get sick by playing games, being in cars/busses airplanes, but the first time I ever got motionsickness, was during that scene.

And almost all movies since then have had the same kind of shit camera-work... (as well as a decent few before that..)

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:45 pm

bouncy camerawork fit for The Blair Witch Project, but I can't think of one movie afterwards that I actually thought it fit.

I didn't notice a lot of bouncing in TDK, but me not noticing stuff like that 'til the second or third play-through isn't uncommon (which is why I've never challenged Poops' star reviewer status

)

The plot twists alone are worth watching it at least once, but if you prefer just wait 6 months or so 'til it comes out on DVD (or your pirating site of choice) and check it out then?

jetbaby · Post by **jetbaby** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:09 pm

For the record I fucking hate Heath Ledger hoped he would die (and then he did, :superpowers:) but he was fucking brilliant.

Mechanurgist · Post by **Mechanurgist** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:35 am

Good but not spectacular performance by Ledger, saved the movie, but the amounts of unbelievability in the whole thing were just absurd. What, the Joker just wired up the whole fucking city with explosives while no-one was watching? All his henchmen are spec-ops supermen who never screw up or deviate from the plan? Too many loopholes in the script and way too many explosions. The face-to-face dialogue scenes were great, that's true, but the movie was too long by far. Felt like 2 movies crammed into one. Christian Bale, as usual, was a better Bruce Wayne than a Batman, and the humour was crowbarred into all the wrong moments (fake Batmans, wtf?).

Gimme Year One and Dark Knight Returns instead.

7/10

Dreadnought · Post by **Dreadnought** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:13 am

cazsim83 wrote:from what I've heard lately, the guy needed some sleep. He just (like many anonymous nobodies (spl?) out there) didn't think, first.

I've heard rumours that Jack Nicholson couldn't sleep for a while after playing the original Joker, but that's not confirmed (by me).

I've also heard that he plays another madman in his last film here, and that Johnny Depp took over the last little bit, but that's also not confirmed.

So, the guy plays two crazies in a row, has trouble sleeping, and is so exhausted or whatever that he mixes some wrong stuff. A friend last night had already drank a bunch of vodka and decided they wanted a couple aspirin, then told me afterward.

Personally, I'd just keep the headache rather than risk it, but apparently they thought it was okay. Maybe Ledger did, too?

Good enough explanation?

The core difference between Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson is that Jack isn't a cowboy OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone, Heath Ledger was.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:20 am

Smiley wrote:Well in Hancock it was bouncing, not around corners or anything, but just so obviously handheld...

In the first Batman, it was truly horrible during all the fightscenes, the one in the temple being the best/worst example, where he was dodging in and out between the other students. I don't get sick by playing games, being in cars/busses airplanes, but the first time I ever got motionsickness, was during that scene.

And almost all movies since then have had the same kind of shit camera-work... (as well as a decent few before that..)

They fixed the fight scene camera so its not looking like a bat with a headcam on filming the fights like in batman begins. I never understood why handheld came back into style, maybe it was for the effect of you being the camera or they were just too cheap and lazy to lay down racks for a camera roller. I don't remeber hancock being much of a problem but so many movies use it I guess you get somewhat used to it, until you see a movie with some really good filmed action with steady cameras.

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:19 am

Blame the Bourne Identity movies and 28 Days Later. Possibly the only movies that I can think of that did it decently. Every other time I see a movie with that shakey cam shit its just... fucking woefully shit.

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:31 am

I saw it on IMAX last night. I'm not sure why people are complaining about the length of the film...I thought it went by very quickly.

Also

SPOILERS

Why did they A. ) Have Scarecrow fighting badguys in the beginning
and
B. ) Kill off Two-Face? He was only two-face for like 10 minutes before he ends up dying. WTF?

End Spoilers

I loved the music in the film as well.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:41 am

Stainless wrote:Blame the Bourne Identity movies and 28 Days Later. Possibly the only movies that I can think of that did it decently. Every other time I see a movie with that shakey cam shit its just... fucking woefully shit.

Indeed, Supremacy especially.

Dreadnought wrote:The core difference between Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson is that Jack isn't a cowboy OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone, Heath Ledger was.

How do you figure? Say what you want about Jack Twist or whatever the fuck but Ledger's character would whoop you silly. Kind of an odd thing to say but he was something of a badass motherfucker in that movie as well, odder still that it's a homosexual love story.

Post by **DarkUnderlord** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:13 pm

Why the hate for Batman Begins? It was a lot better than that gay faggy crap they released in the 90's. Personally hoping to see Dark Knight within the next couple of weeks.

rabidpeanut · Post by **rabidpeanut** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:27 pm

So if you suck at something but you die while you do it you suddenly deserve an award?

ghey.

Unless his acting rocks the fucking cock no matter how dead he is they should give the oscar to one who deserves it.

cazsim83 · Post by **cazsim83** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:10 pm

King of Creation wrote: SPOILERS.

to answer the first question - he must've gotten arrested near the end of the first film, so how'd he get out, etc etc? was my first question.

and yeah, the other villain seemed to be around way too short of a time, I was really thinking that he would get away and be the villain of the third film, as...can't remember his real name...but whatever, he made a very likable hero, then a very convincing villain, so I'm really sad to see he most likely wont' be around for the third film, unless they pull a Hollywood and OMFG j/k not ded! which actually wouldn't be very cool at all