The Hot Blog

I walked out of the theater today and the sun had already come up. What a mind fuck.

Just to put things in perspective...

TDK has a 94% average positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, in numerical terms, it's at 82% at Metacritic.

By comparison, No Country holds a 95% at RT, but maintains a 91% at Meta.

Not that that'll make a dime's worth of difference at the BO...

Did you watch the movie twice, Kris?

Caught it last night. It's as good as everyone says it is, and the few flaws, which DP was spot-on about didn't affect the viewing experience or enjoyment factor at all.

Some impressions:

For a sequel, this film feels both bigger and oddly more stripped down than its predecessor. The action seems a lot smaller and more intimate than Begins, especially when you consider the over-the-top climax of that film that doesn't quite fit with the vibe of the rest of it.

Dark Knight feels more like an organic story, where the action flows mostly from the characters, and not randomly inserted every 20 or so minutes to give the audience something to marvel at in between the "talky shit."

Even the design of Gotham City seems far different. It's not the dystopia it was during Begins. It looks a lot more like an unvarnished Chicago than the first one. (As a lifelong Chicagoan, watching them see what the filmmakers got away with on our streets was a marvel in and of itself.)

I think for a lot of people who took issue with more fantastical aspects of Begins--the train chase at the end, the microwave emitter, etc.--watching Dark Knight will definitively shift more of the blame for those ideas onto David Goyer, who only gets a story credit here. Nolan is really the driving force behind the grounding of Batman, and TDK as written by him and his brother feels like the ultimate realization that you can put a comic book character in the real world and raise the stakes realistically.

The performances:

Strong all around. Bale is once again superb in the role, though he does feel more like an ensemble player this time around. Michael Caine has a few great scenes, especially that silent bit when he pockets the letter from Rachel to eventually burn. Morgan Freeman looks like he's having a good time and offers the film's only glimpses of comic relief. Gary Oldman is so good as the earnest and simple Gordon, it's scary. Fifteen years ago, he could've played the Joker and it would've been a tour-de-force, but the real stretch here is for him to play an average Joe. Inspired casting continues to pay off.

Eckhart will not get enough ink for his performance. He has the biggest arc in the film, and his fall is telegraphed so well. It's rare that in a superhero movie you're dreading a character's transformation into his villainous form, but Eckhart really makes you care for the guy. The CGI makeup job was a little jarring at first, especially because of how over-the-top it is, but Eckhart keeps the character from becoming a run-of-the-mill sideshow freak.

Finally, what's left to talk about but Ledger. The performance burns up the screen and the whole film feels tighter and tenser whenever he's up there. (I also credit Hans Zimmer's and James Newton Howard's Joker theme, which sounds like a swarm of bees dragging nails across a chalkboard, that begins to play whenever he appears for sustaining that mood.)

I read a review that compared him to the great pantheon of film villains, namely Hannibal Lecter. What's funny is how scary Lecter was in Lambs when he was behind bars but in all the subsequent films when he was free to wreak havoc he wasn't nearly as frightening. I guess when a character is free to do anything, maybe nothing is surprising. On the flip side of that, Ledger's Joker has no limitations and you feel just how truly scary that can be. The whole performance is perfectly off-balance, throwing the audience for a loop. I loved, loved, loved him telling two different origin stories about his scars. Nolan and his brother deserve a heap of credit for not crafting a backstory for this guy. The less we know about him, the better.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Late night. Great summer movie.

I agree with Glenn Kenny that the critics who are implying that playing the Joker killed Ledger or led to his death are insulting him and impugning his professionalism. What the hell.

It's a tremendous achievement, that's more realistic as the No Country. If the Academy wants to award one. They should want to reward the other.

Oh I forgot. Pompous snobs the world over do not believe the BAT to be good enough. The Hobbits were? Really? Get out of here.

That is, I think, Eugenen, the price of the relentless selling of Ledger mythology around this movie.

It's stupid, but the whole Ledger thing - which really isn't WB's fault - is walking an odd line between reverence and confusion.

I saw it last night and I suspect that my appreciation for Ledger's performance will improve with multiple viewings. Eckhart, less so, but perhaps because of some problems I had with the script rather than the performance itself.

The main concern I had upon leaving the theater was that the Joker explained himself just a bit too much-- agent of chaos, etc.-- while Two-Face was not really developed enough.

On the whole, though, it's still my favorite of the summer so far. It's quite a movie.

Frick, frack. Love it. Can't wait to see it again. Writing about it right now for my blog and friends. Midnight screenings rule.

I liked it, but I don't get what someone above (JVD) said re: the Joker giving two origin stories.

I heard the one about his father ("Why so serious?") but what was the second origin? That I presume he told the cop in the interrogation room?

Tad: the second was the bad wife story he told to Rachel at the Wayne-Dent benefit.

Overall, I'd peg it at a solid A, off the A+ mark it clearly has in its sights mostly because of some rushed pacing/sloppy character work in the last act. There's also the matter of Batman's disappearing act after the Wayne fundraiser, and Bruce's unexplainable "meh" reaction to Rachel's death, after the movie had gone to some lengths to establish she was his golden sunset vision, off in the distance somewhere. Shouldn't her death have impacted him more, as a longtime friend, prospective lover, and hopeful lifemate?

Anyway, those are quibbles, if fairly significant ones on the quibblemeter. I must say that in terms of establishing and maintaining tone, it was one of the more impressive large-scale movies I've seen in some time, regardless of genre.

And while I find the "Role that Killed Ledger" B.S. insulting and amateur, he is the eerie black heart and thus the tone-setter for the film. I don't see why the Oscar buzz should not be taken seriously just because many have taken the extreme position of hailing it The Role of His Life. I really do think it's in the Hopkins/Hannibal Lector realm of great psychopath performances, regardless of all the other stuff surrounding the hype.

Tad,

He tells the mafia kingpin the one story about his scares being caused by his father with the knife. And then later in the flick when he's terrorizing Rachel Dawes, he says he disfigured himself with razor blades after mobsters attacked and scarred his wife. He was about to tell the cop about his scars during the interrogation, but Nolan cuts away before he gives another presumably different interpretation.

I thought it was a nice take on his origins. The Nolans spared us a simplistic take on what could've damaged this guy enough to turn him into the Joker. It's far more mysterious not knowing.

Maybe he just listened to too much Steve Miller...

Thanks, JVD. That is inspired story-telling. We don't know what the truth is.

One of my big gripes with Burton's film was the insinuation that Jack Napier (the Joker) killed Bruce Wayne's parents (for fifty years, it was understood it was just a hoodlum named Joe Chill).

This way, Nolan's Joker COULD have the canonized origin (gangster burned by acid) or one of the stories he tells in the course of this movie. You just don't know. And that's cool.

Tad,

Burton didn't insinuate it. He flat out made Jack Napier (The Joker) the killer of Batman's parents. Looking back on the first Burton outing, that departure from canon is actually one of the least objectionable parts of that film, which has not aged well. I guess you can blame Jon Peters for it, everyone else does, and the guy really seems to have a deft touch with giving a director just enough rope to hang himself. (See Barry Sonnenfeld in Wild Wild West, or worse, Bryan Singe in Superman Returns.)

By the time Returns rolled around and the studio dropped Peters and let Burton's freak flag fly, you got a film that didn't really stick that closely to comic lore, but was a far more satisfying and coherent ride. The irony is that, like Returns, TDK is a pretty unsettling ride, though I doubt they will drop Nolan like Burton because they couldn't sell more toys because of it.

"Bruce's unexplainable "meh" reaction to Rachel's death"

Huh? They showed Bruce literally crying in front of Alfred.

Someone's gotta say it. This movie is damn near joyless. I'm with DP on the negative stuff. The Dark Knight suffers from Kingdom of Heaven-itis. This overwritten story as it is should have been in a longer movie by half an hour. The finished movie feels rushed and airless. And while it develops a confident plot rhythm, it doesn't really find a dramatic rhythm. Toward the end, it becomes as emotionally overstuffed and disconnected as Spider-Man 3. (and a bit like the last season of Lost, where the usually smart minds start taking the characters for granted and figure an overdose of melodramatic plot is story enough)

But there is a lot of good stuff. This is one film that LOOKS so freaking great people are going to think its great just based on that. The compositions are pristine and sexy. The scenes may not feel of consequence but they LOOK of consequence and it appears that that's enough for some. Nolan bites off more than he can chew here... but he does it with more class than most directors.

The airy weirdness Ledger brings to the over-polished proceedings is noteworthy. But I don't think this whole canonization of the role is anything more than sentimental hype. The Joker makes a physical impression but in a movie overflowing with "themes" he doesn't really resonate thematically. So much so, in the end the bad guy is required to explain to Batman his place in the story (during two minutes of hanging upside down), likely because the storytellers realized it wasn't coming through any other way.

The Kool Aid being drunk on this movie is even more stunning than the Iron Man one. Gotham may need a better class of criminals but movies really need a better class of critics.

DAMN NEAR JOYLESS? What the fuck are you going on about? This movie is the dark and more cynical version of the same message that Wall-E hammers home. This is a movie that believes in people. It believes in people to do the right thing. Harvey Dent may have snapped but the Bat taking it on himself to secure his legacy. Demonstrates that this movie believes in people to not believe the Bat turned DARK, but to believe the BAT did what he had to do to make Gotham a better place.

I love the net. It's the only place where cynical people can post their ramblings about totally non-cynical movies. It's you. Not the movie.

I don't think Crow is saying that the movie is cynical... and either am I. I think he is saying, a bit more harshly than I, that the film gets so caught up in trying to prove that it's not a comic book that it loses its narrative steam, especially in the final 30 minutes with the Two-Face stuff that is lacking any real depth other than the depth the dialogue keeps stating.

Answer me this, IO... should be simple... what does the change in how Harvey uses the coin to how Two-Face uses the coin mean? Why does he start letting fate be in absolute control after he cheated as Harvey with a two-faced coin? Why is ok for him to cheat fate in the Eric Roberts car crash? Why does he choose to believe The Joker instead of the man who saved his life?

What is Harvey Dent/Two-Face in this movie, aside from a strong Eckhart performance, some great nasty CG, and an idea expressed almost exclusively in dialogue?

And "It Owns" or "You Fail" is not a real answer.

First rule of screenwriting... show it, don't say it. If you have to tell people what it means, rather than have them feel it, you have failed or are cleaning up a mess.

Again, I like this movie. And it is the most ambitious superhero movie ever and deserves high praise for that. But the flaws are not so hard to call out.

The Two-Face stuff is lacking any real depth. Sweet Nipples of Hera, HE'S A METAPHOR OF THE DUALISM OF THIS STORY. Here is a man torn between the righteous path of the Bat and the anarchy of the Freak. He literally becomes a breathing dicotomy.

Have you ever tried to be two things at once? Have you ever tried to be rational and crazed at the same time? Harvey Dent uses that coin to determine which part of his nature is display.

Heck, it's his dad's lucky coin, and that has to have amazing significance for the guy. You also might want to pay attention to the way he dealt with the guy who pulled a gun on him in the courtroom. He handled that in a way only someone a bit, off the chain, would. So it's in him.

Once he loses everything. He decides to give into that other side of himself. Which makes Two-Face a rather simple metaphor of a character, but a rather effective one.

Nevertheless, it's absolutely clueless questions like the one you asked Poland, that can have a tendency to set me off. It's sort of like Mendelson going on about the Joker getting into the bus after the Hospital explosion, and being unnoticed by the police. HE KIDNAPPED THAT BUS, but you ask the question anyway?

Oh yeah, two things: the score of this film, while crazed and manic, has a theme that ties into the Bat's belief in people. While the movie my not be overly whimsical because it's a movie based around a CITY UNDER SIEGE! IF you have to make the statement. Think about it.

One more thing: did anyone in here get the symbolism behind "I BELIEVE IN HARVEY DENT"? If there was ever a character perfect for the Summer of CHANGE. Harvey Dent is that character. He's what can go right and wrong in the system, and it's a rather deft storyteling in terms of the politics in this film.

IO, stop blasting people for not having the same opinion as you.

Anyway, gotta say I loved the first two thirds of the movie, but I felt the final third had some issues. The bit with the ferries and the office building, while well thought out, I didn't feel was as well executed as the rest of the movie's action sequences. It just sort of felt awkward, like they couldn't think of something different to do. And then when neither ferries blew up the Joker just sort of didn't do anything.

And while I really liked Eckhart throughout the movie, I thought the later scenes after TwoFace escapes the hospital were the weakest part of the movie. They reminded of a much much better, but still disappointing, version of Spider-Man 3's Venom storyline. A last act villain that while fitting the film and the plot just didn't feel important enough to take our attention away from the Joker, who was a truly great villain.

The sort of performance by Ledger that when he's on screen he's absolutely electric (that hospital scene with Eckhart was perhaps my favourite of the whole movie) and when he's not on screen he bleeds through and pumps you up. When will he come back, what will he do next? He gives the film an even bigger jolt of energy. Unlike in Spider-Man 3 where it felt that movie's main villain (Sandman, right?) was just there for the sake of it and when he wasn't on screen I didn't miss him at all.

My biggest annoyance, however, is completely irrational and silly and I expect the likes of fanboy IO to try and rip my head off for it. Alas, the voice Bale put on when he was in Bat mode was really annoying. I know he was just trying to disguise his voice (even though he used the same voice when he was speaking to ppl who knew Batman was Bruce Wayne? or did that never happen?) It just sounded really... annoying. Sorry, can't think of another word for it. Did he have that voice in Begins?

Camel: he had the same voice in the first film. It's a voice that Bale can apparently slip in and out of effortlessly now. I am also not bashing anyone for not agreeing with me. This is about what it's about, but it's not about what you believe it's about.

But IO you are and you don't even realise it. Somebody says it's a great movie, but not a masterpiece (oh, like say Dave) and you paint them as Negative Nancy and call them names. People (Dave, Crow, myself) call issue with the way the later part of the movie dealing with Two Face was handled and we're all wrong because you "got" it or whatever and we did not. It's nice that you already decided what your thoughts were going to be before even going into the movie, but some of us didn't. People have different opinions. It's what makes discussion interesting. But you're so quick to want to prove we're wrong, so it's all moot, really.

ugh.

My theory as to why they killed off Rachel: Female villain. Love interest. Batman Returns redux.

Or maybe she's not really dead and SHE is the villain? Did that ever happen in the comics? Was Rachel even in the comics or was she just a creation for the new movies?

Thoughts?

I agree that the Harvey Dent character arc is pretty much truncated once he leaves the hospital--there should be more of him being Two Face. Otherwise, I thought it was awesome. I didn't find it oppressive at all. It moves quickly enough that you don't get shrouded. I'd call it more earnest. I can't wait to see it again.

A really solid film. Solid. I saw it on IMAX at 6 AM this morning and say it was worth it. I prolly would've been just as excited by it seeing it at midnight in stadium seating but I'll see what, if anything, it loses in a reg theater.

I enjoyed Ledger's performance. Just the opening shot of him, greasy hair, lurching shoulders, mask facing backwards that he carries in his hand, really great. Would love to see that as a one sheet. (if I haven't already???) There were a couple of times he got close to the line of some dufus trying to "act crazy" but all held in. I don't know when it began but he continues a line of villains who really don't look too physically menacing (I'm talking size here) who you can still believe being physically strong enough to back the talk. Certainly even w/out armor it looks like Bale is much more cut but I didn't have a hard time believe Joker could lay down enough of a beating to coerce people to do his will.

I did like the action sequences but they weren't the most memorable. I'm glad it was a crime drama first and action flick second but I kinda felt like it needed to have something more jaw dropping at some point. One thing I thought was cool, and I even thought of it as the Joker was walking out the hospital blowing sh#t up w/his detonator, was that it shouldn't be so perfectly orchestrated. Sure enough, he gets transmitter problems. I liked the fumbling frustration he face and then the underground boom when it does work. Only to be topped by the hospital's complete demise with the bigger explosions that I didn’t see coming.

I think my problems w/it was that it left too much to be assumed. My guess is if those issues were shown it might've pushed this film up to the A+ level. Part of it was hard because I knew Eckhard’s character is Two-Face, so most of what he’s saying I’m assuming are lies, like he’s the mole or working some double agenda. I didn’t realize he was that good or that noble. Sure he steps up to take the fall and claim to be Batman but it seemed like one of those things that would be quickly disproved. It never seemed like he really stood to loose anything more than a few hours on a slow afternoon.

Also, for the good and the bad, there didn’t seem to be any gray area or areas of true temptation. In the Untouchable, which I haven’t seen in umpteen years, you’ve got Ness and his men going after the mob only to find one of his own crew tipping back some contraband. What else could Gordon, Wayne or Dent have done? The only given choice besides fighting evil is maybe to turn apathetic. Even if that’s as strong a choice as you got, let’s see them actually having the option of just walking away and seeing what poss benefit that could bring. One thing I’ll say about Spiderman II, (well 2 things as that like Dark Knight wasn’t an action super hero movie at it’s core, it was a romance movie first with great action sequences) is that is showed a realistic and very decisive internal struggle of Peter Parker wanting to just walk away from constantly having to save the world. It wasn’t the stupid black suit alter ego crap that was tossed about on Spidey 3, but we could see why it’d be so appealing for him to just go on about life, if for no other reason than to not be put upon to be hero while at the same time being relegated to a box of nice guy.

Another thing we don’t see here is love. I wasn’t looking for a love triangle. Certainly an hour could’ve been lifted out of massive indifference that was Pearl Harbor but the only reason I know Rachel Dawes loves Dent more than Bruce was she tells us and I still had a hard time believing that any of them loved each other. Really, they all seemed like they may’ve worked in the same office for a few years but that’s about all we get to see except a kiss, a momentarily held hand and a couple of souvenirs left behind.

I’m glad that no time was spent trying to remind us who Bruce Wayne really is/was. Also liked the inconclusive device used to give “backstory” for the Joker. Batman’s arc could’ve had more struggle or force against his growth or demanded more learning from him, maybe. It might not have had to been inner demon fight as much as maybe seeing an emptiness that he feels from his life or not being with Rachel or the lack of justice in Gotham or his presence not making the impact he so desired despite his best efforts.

I guess that’s if for now though I may come back to bring up, “what makes a franchise,” as these past two Batman films have defied conventional wisdom.

Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 had an almost identical bad guy arc to Harvey. He's a proud professional. His lady dies because of his job. He becomes a villain. He's angry. Spends the rest of the movie in a lie, trying to right the wrong.

The thing is... Molina changed, whereas Eckhart had a full REVERSE. One is an evolution, the other is a straight up betrayal of everything before it. Nobody with any sense would buy Rachel's killer The Joker turning him into Two Face with just words in a hospital room. It's bullshit. As bullshit as Nolan trying to make his "reverse scenes" in Memento add up to anything more than clever. But he's gotta go there for plot's sake so he dresses up Ledger in a kinky DePalma nurse outfit for the scene and hopes we're laughing too much to think too much.

The solution would have been to make Harvey less Boy Scout and more aggressive. Like Pacino in Heat. An alpha dog do-gooder. The change wouldn't have been as dramatic, but it woulda worked better...well... DRAMATICALLY.

And IO, chill out a bit. You defending the "righteousness" of this movie is turning YOU into a bit of a villain, bro.

Crow, he gets the MCWEENEY STYLE!

"The thing is... Molina changed, whereas Eckhart had a full REVERSE. One is an evolution, the other is a straight up betrayal of everything before it."

Nope. He almost got to the point until Bats stopped him. If you have been pushed and pushed by the same people. You eventually freakin lose it.

If you have lost your face. If you have lost the love of your life. If you have lost it all. Words can change you.

"Nobody with any sense would buy Rachel's killer The Joker turning him into Two Face with just words in a hospital room. It's bullshit."

No one with any sense would be so cynical to believe, in this Summer of CHANGE, that words are "bullshit". Again, do you ever really think about these character as people, or do you just think about them on a mere story-level? Whatever it is, words have brought down mountains, have killed billions, and have saved billions. Is that bullshit? If so... yeah... human history laughs at you.

"As bullshit as Nolan trying to make his ;reverse scenes' in Memento add up to anything more than clever. But he's gotta go there for plot's sake so he dresses up Ledger in a kinky DePalma nurse outfit for the scene and hopes we're laughing too much to think too much."

Yes, I was laughing to hard to miss the point. Come on. What's the deal with this? Oy.

"And IO, chill out a bit. You defending the 'righteousness' of this movie is turning YOU into a bit of a villain, bro."

Go re-read your post, then tell me whose the villian. One person seems to be empathetic to the human condition. While another seems to think "IT'S BULLSHIT". So... yeah... CAMEL GETS THE MCWEENEY STYLE... RIGHT NOW!

"But IO you are and you don't even realise it. Somebody says it's a great movie, but not a masterpiece (oh, like say Dave) and you paint them as Negative Nancy and call them names."

David Poland is once again on the outside looking in. He's once again responding like a man who cannot accept the world around him and lashing out.

He's entitled to his righetous indignation, but I have had enough of this ridiculous bollocks after Iron-Man. A film he still thinks he understood, but it apparently was as foreign to him as a top button.

There's only so much one poster can take. If you think it's alright. Good for you. Nevertheless, it does not work for me. It's hokey and I have to state as much.

"People (Dave, Crow, myself) call issue with the way the later part of the movie dealing with Two Face was handled and we're all wrong because you 'got' it or whatever and we did not."

It's the human condition. My response to Crow sums this up, but please undestand it's not about being wrong. It's simply about watching and not looking.

"It's nice that you already decided what your thoughts were going to be before even going into the movie, but some of us didn't. People have different opinions. It's what makes discussion interesting. But you're so quick to want to prove we're wrong, so it's all moot, really."

How can I have a discussion when you assume that I already made up my mind before I even saw the movie? How is that a discussion, when you are basically telling me that I am a big dumbass who lacks the ability to temper his enthusiasm.

So, Camel, I am going to respond to you the way I would if I knew you in real-life. Fuck you. Fuck you for assuming that I made up my mind before I saw this movie. If you have not noticed. I have stated on this very blog that EXPECTATIONS ARE A SUCKERS GAME.

This is why I go into all of the thousands (Yes David, I have watched THOUSANDS of films and have no idea what's great storytelling. Right back at you) of films I have watched in my life with hope. That's hope. I hope it's a good flick.

The Dark Knight is a great flick. A flick I had no expectations about before I saw the film. I did not need this film to be the end all and be all of this year for me film-wise, but it is. It is a tremendous achievement that millions of people are flocking to see this weekend. It's a special time.

So I am going to enjoy it and you need to realize, that you broke your rules of having a discussion by assuming my arguments to be a certain way.

And for my next trick, I'll make this pencil disappear...

Awesome. That moment specifically, although the movie was quite good too. I did feel that it was a bit too long, and although most of the action was really well-done, it felt like there was a bit too much of it by the end of the film. Joker's ability to recruit seemingly endless numbers of henchmen, despite his predilection for killing them off when they're less than useful to him, was also a bit jarring.

But it looks like it's on track for the biggest opening day ever according to Variety.

I also think the Chinese banker plot and the plot about the Wayne Enterprises employee who threatens to reveal Batman's identity could've been dropped without too much damage to the film. Would've made sitting around for 2.5 hours feel less like a drag.

"No one with any sense would be so cynical to believe, in this Summer of CHANGE, that words are "bullshit"."

Huh?

Back to TDK: it's an issue others have raised, but why the hell hasn't Nolan given Batman a voice modifier? That husky rasp not only sounds goofy: it also happens to look ridiculous, like he has really bad asthma and is sucking in as much air as he can with each breath.

"Nope."

That says it all, really. Crow lays down his argument. You dismiss.

"The Dark Knight is a great flick. A flick I had no expectations about before I saw the film."

Considering you have been harping on about how much other people are out of touch for not thinking the movie is an A+ masterpiece before you even had the chance to see it, I can't for a second believe that you have no expectations before seeing The Dark Knight.

"There's only so much one poster can take."

You mean there's only so much differing opinions that you can handle? Gosh! Whod've thunk it that people could - wait for it - think for themselves and have an opinion that is their own. Because that's what it is. A difference of opinion. As I said before, if everybody thought the same then that would be incredibly boring. If you hate Dave for not having an orgasm over this movie then go somewhere where THE PERSON WHO WRITES THE BLOG is. There's plenty of 'em.

"It's the human condition. My response to Crow sums this up, but please undestand it's not about being wrong. It's simply about watching and not looking."

I watched. I looked too (er, they're the same thing, right?) and I saw a rushed and awkwardly staged final act. You didn't. That's great for you. I'm glad you loved it because I think it's lovely when anybody loves a film as passionately as you seem to love The Dark Knight, but the issues I had weren't born out of some inability to understand the Shakespearean tragedy that you seem to think it has. I'm not a bloody idiot just because I don't think the storyline of Harvey Dent post-Two Face was as wonderfully constructed as the pre-Two Face storyline was, or because it wasn't as delicately developed like The Joker's storyline.

I really liked The Dark Knight, I'd give it an 8.5/10. But go ahead and continue to tell me that I, and anyone who has the same issues, that we're wrong and that you are right because if there's one thing we can all agree on it's that there's no place for different opinions when it comes to film criticism.

qwiggle, I'm not sure what "this summer of CHANGE" means either. Agreed with the voice thing. It just sounds so silly.

No, KCamel, this was explained before. When you don't like a movie, it's your fault. When he doesn't like a movie, the movie sucked.

The Two-Face/third act complaint is pretty simple to explain; Nolan took Goyer's original two-picture storyarc and jigsawed it into one. While the pieces fit for story momentum, some ideas are so big that they feel abbreviated.

First example is Hong Kong/Sonar Spying. As a subplot, it plays out neat and clean, but in regards to Wayne, it's a massive mentality jump for which they never show the beat. IIRC, it's a Superman idea from the late 90's/early 00's, and it works because the reader has decades of Superman's character underpinning the jump to global spying. With TDK, we have a shift that occurs in under a week and the thematic argument is what are Batman's limits. But theme is not character and I can't recall "the scene" where Wayne is justifying this to himself, forget Fox. What we do get is a very clinical Wayne/Batman relationship that only goes awry when Rachel is involved. So while the theme of limits is always in play, Nolan has so much ground to cover that he can't stop and expound upon it. Like Gordon and the dirty cops; it plays out, but we never get "that moment" of Gordon behind his desk, looking out at a sea of fellow brothers-in-blue and one may kill him. What we do get is the dialog of that feeling, from Joker, which is the "show not tell" problem Dave was alluding to.

And THAT is the difference between Mann and Nolan. Nolan can crib camera movements and edits, angles and sound drops, but he doesn't perceive Mann's basic philosophy which is action begins when words no longer work. Just look at the last scene of TDK, and compare it to the endings of Miami Vice, Heat, Collateral and Manhunter. Nolan either doesn't trust the audience to get the "Knight" meaning or he and his brother love dialog, because that speech becomes more melodramatic upon repeat viewing and it would have worked to cut it and just go the the title card. People would have gotten the chivalry of his actions.

As for Dent, it's not that Joker's words would change him so quickly, it's that Nolan did not make the identity split as stark; two identities in one body and the coin decides who wins the argument. Why Nolan didn't is because of the attempt at grounded realism, but that is never going to work in a Hollywood production. The realism wanted exists in Morrison/McKean's Arkham Asylum, where Dent can't even decide to take a piss without flipping the coin. That's real-world, but it requires a lot more time. The only other option would be to make a Jekyll/Hyde character, which jettisons the realism for a larger arch. Nolan, I presume, thought he could explain the insanity by Dent refusing his pain meds because he never experiences the head trauma needed to crack his identity.

Overall, it really feels like Nolan did this because he's either planning on not doing a third or is not sure about the negotiations. Outside of No Man's Land crossed with Knightfall, there's not much left to dig into.

And Dave - What's the explanation as to why you allow IO to tell people to F off, cast dispersions and nosedive every thread into a meandering, pointless disaster.

IO can't tell the difference between theme and character. He doesn't perceive that these movies are so flawless in his eyes because he's dragging two tons of mental comic backlog with him into the theater and is reading them into the scenes. And when someone challenges that, he wigs out.

I've beat him down now a few times, but it's becoming pointless. When he loses, he screams and runs, waiting until he finds the next way to hijack a thread.

It's old, Dave. The screeds are old, the conspiracies are old. And age-wise, he's not "young", but as I pointed out, closer to thirty than eighteen. He's an adult, treat him as such. I feel IO gets away with this shit because he's on the correct political bandwagon, because I've seen you clamp down on people a lot quicker.

I've asked him a dozen times as to why he comes here, and he never answers. Instead, his fuse gets shorter and shorter. I'm not asking you to ban the fool, just an explanation as to why he's beyond being moderated. Hell, Warez and torrent sites tolerate less and they're pirates.

Wasn't there a rumour going around that Dent was to become Two Face towards the end of The Dark Knight and was to be a major focus of the third movie? Or am I just imagining that. Because the Two Face aspect of the character reminded me so much of Venom in Spider-Man 3 (a much much worse film) as a villain who was shoehorned into the story. Dent fit into the movie perfectly, Two Face did not. That's my feeling anyway. Of course, as we've seen, IO will shoot that down and call me incorrect and to "not play" or whatever.

TO be fair, I told LexG to f off the other day, but that was because he insinuated I was psychologically/mentally disturbed so I felt justified, really.

I understand that people may not think this is a great movie and there are flaws that can be pointed out; but comparing this to Spidey 3? That move was a clusterf***.

This movie is a masterpiece. Yes it may not be the best movie of alltime or even good enough for Oscars, but the quality of the movie is what jumps out at you and ensnares people to loving this movie. It helps cover up some flaws that might be otherwise glaring: the cell phone net, Dent's conversion to 2-face. I think had they just stuck with Batman vs Joker (and Joker vs the City really) the move would have been more solid. I actually thought they would address Dent as 2-face in another movie (or at least leave it to a potential sequel).

Elaborating a little.. I do agree with Kam, 2-face didn't belong, but I don't think it was as egregious as Venom. Spidey was all over the place and felt like a disaster compared to the first 2 spidey movies.

The cinematography, sound, sound editing, editing, effects - all lead to a high quality movie. And as of now, why not for Oscars? It is one of the best movies of the year so far. We have to see what else comes out at the end of the year and where they compare to TDK (which probably means TDK being left out). But as I recall, all best picture nominees of the last few years have not been universally loved and people pick out flaws of those movies.

Oh my. I gave the film 8.5/10. What about that makes it sound like I didn't like the movie? And my comparison to Spider-Man 3 was more out of convenience due to the similarities of the qualms than anything related to actual quality. I haaated Spider-Man 3. The few thinks in Dark Knight that I had an issue with were still far better than anything in Spider-Man 3. Don't confuse the issue. I only brought up that tripe because it was an easy analogy.

The Two Face storyline wasn't given enough space to become anywhere near as boneheaded as Venom, but the similarities remain. Extraneous villains born from interesting subplots (although pre-TF Harvey Dent was far more engrossing and film serving than anything Topher Grace was doing with his character in Spider-Man 3) that would have made fine villains in their own right.

Maskatron: Yes, he seems moderately bummed out, and asks if this was his fault. But that's the extent of this man's mourning for one of the only two people who have seen him through the bulk of his life, and the woman he hoped to live with forever and ever, post-Batman? No funeral? No more mention of her, except from Harvey? You'd think it'd be a real 'take stock of things' impetus for him, given how he viewed her as his great hope for a normal life.

Amidst all that exposition, couldn't they have found room to observe how her death may have made him more likely to accept his role as permanent persona non grata at the end? The connection is probably there, but it's never discussed or even established in visual terms.

Does anyone think Batman's decision to go after Dent was far more selfish than if he'd gone after Rachel? To me it was the equivalent of wanting to eat his cake. Dent is the good guy Wayne can't be. Wayne can't be with Rachel until he gives up Batman. To do that, he needs someone to take his place. That's Dent. So by saving Dent he saves his replacement, allowing him to retire, which means he can live happily ever after. If he saves Rachel, he still doesn't get what he wants, since even though she's alive Dent's death means he can't put away the mask. Hence, he chooses to save Dent, but it all goes disastrously wrong, and he winds up losing them both. He tries to kill two birds with one stone, and all he winds up with are two dead birds.

Blackcloud, the way I read it, he DID go after Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses. No?

Ah, that's possible. I remember him saying he was going for her, too. I must have missed the address switch. That makes my explanation too clever by at least a third.

Jeff: that's not really the case. Again, read the complaints, and notice a trend in those complaints. Most of the complaints towards this film have nothing to do with the film. They are all the person's biases lashing out at something does not fit FOR THEM.

If it's a universal flaw. It's a universal flaw. It's just some bullshit that people cannot get their head around because of their own bullshit. Well... do you get the point now
McMahon?

If not, read qwiggles last post, and understand how his complaint is about HOW HE WOULD RESPOND NOT HOW BATMAN/BRUCE WAYNE responds. It's not my fault that what passes for the discussion on this and many other forums seems to derive from a lack of fucking empathy on the parts of the posters.

I also love how not a one of you figured out what the SUMMER OF CHANGE is... IT'S AN OBAMA SUMMER! Get it now? See... not really up on the haps.

Now let's deal with this fucking bore Martin. Mr. CAA agent. Seriously, he's an agent, and he spends his time posting to this board. I feel for his clients.

The rather large-headed man wrote; "The Two-Face/third act complaint is pretty simple to explain; Nolan took Goyer's original two-picture storyarc and jigsawed it into one. While the pieces fit for story momentum, some ideas are so big that they feel abbreviated."

Oh look... he knows something... bladiblah bladiblah.

"First example is Hong Kong/Sonar Spying. As a subplot, it plays out neat and clean, but in regards to Wayne, it's a massive mentality jump for which they never show the beat. IIRC, it's a Superman idea from the late 90's/early 00's, and it works because the reader has decades of Superman's character underpinning the jump to global spying. With TDK, we have a shift that occurs in under a week and the thematic argument is what are Batman's limits. But theme is not character and I can't recall 'the scene' where Wayne is justifying this to himself, forget Fox. What we do get is a very clinical Wayne/Batman relationship that only goes awry when Rachel is involved. So while the theme of limits is always in play, Nolan has so much ground to cover that he can't stop and expound upon it. Like Gordon and the dirty cops; it plays out, but we never get "that moment" of Gordon behind his desk, looking out at a sea of fellow brothers-in-blue and one may kill him. What we do get is the dialog of that feeling, from Joker, which is the
'show not tell' problem Dave was alluding to."

You can tell this man has neither a creative bone is his body or a knack for prose, with this rather boring, dull, and pointless paragraph. He also seemingly forgets to RECALL THE FIRST FUCKING MOVIE and all this nonsense goes away.

"And THAT is the difference between Mann and Nolan. Nolan can crib camera movements and edits, angles and sound drops, but he doesn't perceive Mann's basic philosophy which is action begins when words no longer work. Just look at the last scene of TDK, and compare it to the endings of Miami Vice, Heat, Collateral and Manhunter. Nolan either doesn't trust the audience to get the "Knight" meaning or he and his brother love dialog, because that speech becomes more melodramatic upon repeat viewing and it would have worked to cut it and just go the the title card. People would have gotten the chivalry of his actions."

Oh look: Martin is bringing Mann into this because I brought up Miami Vice. Interesting. Thing of it is: Gordon is explaining things to his son and to the audience in a NECESSARY WAY TO ESTABLISH A SEQUEL! If you have the Black Mask running around. You need to have that speech to establish that someone worse than the Bat is now running Gotham. You are trying to grasp it Martin, but it's slipping through those pudgy fingers.

"As for Dent, it's not that Joker's words would change him so quickly, it's that Nolan did not make the identity split as stark; two identities in one body and the coin decides who wins the argument. Why Nolan didn't is because of the attempt at grounded realism, but that is never going to work in a Hollywood production. The realism wanted exists in Morrison/McKean's Arkham Asylum, where Dent can't even decide to take a piss without flipping the coin. That's real-world, but it requires a lot more time. The only other option would be to make a Jekyll/Hyde character, which jettisons the realism for a larger arch. Nolan, I presume, thought he could explain the insanity by Dent refusing his pain meds because he never experiences the head trauma needed to crack his identity."

Blah blah bladiblah. The real-world is a man flipping a coin to take a piss? If he's OCD. You are so determine to put off this figurative air of having a good damn clue, that you cannot differentiate between SPLIT PERSONALITIES AND FUCKING OCD! Thus making this entire fucking paragraph completely and utterly... negated.

"Overall, it really feels like Nolan did this because he's either planning on not doing a third or is not sure about the negotiations. Outside of No Man's Land crossed with Knightfall, there's not much left to dig into."

THE BLACK MASK. One more time... THE BLACK MASK. He's the last "real" Batman villian left to use, and he fits perfectly in the framework of this story. Back to your nonsense.

"And Dave - What's the explanation as to why you allow IO to tell people to F off, cast dispersions and nosedive every thread into a meandering, pointless disaster."

Go read that post and you will get that it was a more general "FUCK YOU" then a angry "FUCK YOU", since Camel made statements that were worthy of such a response in this realm or real-life.

"IO can't tell the difference between theme and character. He doesn't perceive that these movies are so flawless in his eyes because he's dragging two tons of mental comic backlog with him into the theater and is reading them into the scenes. And when someone challenges that, he wigs out."

No, sorry, that's not the case. I simply paid attention to the film. I paid attention to what Nolan put on screen. If you consider responding to meandering comments about an epic film as "wigging out". Well pudgy finger, you once again lack the ability to make a proper analogy.

"I've beat him down now a few times..."

What? I have pretty much ripped you apart every argument we have ever had. You are left in tathers after I have any discussion with you.

"but it's becoming pointless. When he loses, he screams and runs, waiting until he finds the next way to hijack a thread."

No, I make my point, and I walk off. There's nothing else you can post that will make your point come across any better.

"It's old, Dave. The screeds are old, the conspiracies are old. And age-wise, he's not 'young', but as I pointed out, closer to thirty than eighteen. He's an adult, treat him as such."

Now here's what makes you an arrogant cunt. Whose had his palms greased for way too many years. YOU TRY TO BULLY ME AND I AM THE BAD GUY? You and McMahon, Blackcloud, Leahnz, and countless others post like a bunch of BULLIES and I AM THE BAD GUY? Please.

If we are all adults here. Why don't you adults realize that we cannot have discussions, when half the regular posters are looking for fights!

You guys just want to rule the roost and push anyone out who dares challenges you. SO excuse me for not standing down to a bully bitch like yourself.

"I feel IO gets away with this shit because he's on the correct political bandwagon, because I've seen you clamp down on people a lot quicker."

Nope. He never has. PIYC Jackson has let people post on this blog insulting people's mothers. He never did anything to stop them. So... really... I am not getting away with anything. I am simply not standing around and letting Poland get away with bullshit HE WOULD NEVER LET ANYONE ELSE GET AWAY WITH ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

"I've asked him a dozen times as to why he comes here,"

Discuss movies.

"and he never answers."
I am not a sub-ordinate of you. So I owe you no answer.

"Instead, his fuse gets shorter and shorter."

I seem rather calm compared to a blow-hard like you.

"I'm not asking you to ban the fool, just an explanation as to why he's beyond being moderated."

Why are you beyond being moderated? You are the one whose a bully. Bullies should always be the first ones asked to go.

"Hell, Warez and torrent sites tolerate less and they're pirates."

So someone works in the Biz and illegally downloads content. Ladies and gentlemen, the ASSHOLE DE JOUR OF THE HOT BLOG... MARTIN S... he works at CAA! CALL HIM UP, LEAVE A MESSAGE, AND LET HIM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL!

Or to tell him... PUDGY FINGERED PEOPLE SHOULD NOT PLAY!

"If not, read qwiggles last post, and understand how his complaint is about HOW HE WOULD RESPOND NOT HOW BATMAN/BRUCE WAYNE responds. It's not my fault that what passes for the discussion on this and many other forums seems to derive from a lack of fucking empathy on the parts of the posters."

Easy there, friend! No need to throw an F bomb at me when a simple "I disagree" would do. My complaint had nothing to do with how I would respond. Read my words again: "You'd think it'd be a real 'take stock of things' impetus for him, given how he viewed her as his great hope for a normal life." Key words: for him, how he viewed her.

My point was: given what we know from the movie about how he views Rachel as his hope for a normal life, his response to her death is curiously muted, inconsistent even, with what has come before. Not with what I'd do, which was never at issue, as I am not Bruce Wayne.

Settle down and read; did you miss the part where I said I'd give it a solid A? It's a borderline excellent movie, I think -- that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to air out logical inconsistencies that niggle at me.

IOI, you're the one who acts like a bully.

Jeff: bullshit.

Again, you have stated on this forum that you "RAN OFF" other posters. How does that not make you the bad guy? I am simply stating that the posters who believe themselves to be in the right are not. While those who are seen as being the bad guys are not.

One more AGAIN... if you want to be fucking civil. If everyone wants to be fucking civil. We can be fucking civil. If not... if you guys still want to fight. WE WILL FIGHT. It's on you to make the call.

Qwiggle: some people curse and it's not always meant in the way you believe it's meant. Nevertheless, there is a reason for that speech as much as there is a reason why Alfred burnt the note. Bruce would be devestated. He dealt with it the best he could, but you have to move on. You cannot take time to yourself to grieve when your city is under siege.

IOI: Because the other posters were bad guys, which is a verifiable fact. They were two people who posted under multiple false identities and sought to lie and defame others.

Thanks everyone for their Opinions...please don't leave. Please.

IOIOIOI ... no excuse for acting like you should not be subject to the same censure that you inflict.

And most importantly--everyone is entitled to their opinion. It helps for understanding if people explain their opinions but they don;t have to justify them. It isn't a court-room under oath.

And what if some people are agents or managers or writers or story boarders...are we not all entitled to have our moviegoing opinion? I am glad of the different views...

Perhaps driving everyone away who disagrees with you is your object, but that presents a problem for the longevity of Dave's board if he wants it s place for many perspectives.

DARK KNIGHT

I liked Dark Knight, I really enjoyed it...love the crime drama elements...I am a batgirl & Bale is a really good batman... but I thought there were too many detached "little" subplots that detracted and distracted from this particular movie. It seemed to move so fast in one sense but it was too long...that means some could have been trimmed and still left a great movie.

Aside from that, what dropped it from a 9.25 to an 8.5 was the entire manner of Rachel biting the Dust etc. and I really really didn;t like what was done with Harvey in the third act.

Having said that, I still really enjoyed it.

Kumbaya. Deadlines call...Back to work.

by the way Jeff, you needn't justify why someone was banned from this board.

Anyone who is banned from here richly earned it.

Bout time to send Dave an email on that.

Inbetween the nastiness, there are some good points being made and great theories.

I think all the sub plots and character uses were fine. The movie did feel a tad long but really if some of these things previously mentioned had been brought out a more complete and prolly better film could've come by it, even though that would've been your 3 hour epic. (And then sadly people might've said it could've been a great 2 hr movie if they removed the action)

Crow - nice summary on Dent vs Molina and then liked some counter pov's. My thinking was the amount of loss Dent faces explains his behavior (not of course justifying it). He didn't seem so "two-faced" about anything. Was he acting out or doing things he knew were wrong? Definitely. Not to sound like anybody's apologist, but good people do bad things. Granted, it's generally on the level of telling someone off at a holiday party or stuffing a broken product back in the box to return as brand new. I need to go back and see it because I'm not sure what Dent did DIRECTLY (apart from the kidnapping, which yes is horrendous but that did seem like it could've been covered up). Overall, I was just thinking that the fuzziness of him going bat guano at the end wouldn't truly define him as being two faced. He wasn't playing both sides against the middle. He wasn't saying one thing and then doing another. I would've said he just lost it. People know the difference between ahole coaches and politicians who live a lifetime of bad behavior and those people who've distinguished themselves over the course of their careers only to do some inexplicably stupid stuff before quietly being asked to resign.

Again, it could've just been me but I needed to have seen Dent truly be good so I wasn't thinking he was only being good to get what he wanted or being manipulative.

Wait, as I'm thinking, isn't there a problem with them making Batman out to be the scapegoat? If it's to protect Dent's name, wouldn't that be tarnished by Dent already claiming to be the Batman?

Lota, nobody ever got banned, they were just humiliated and left.

Oh, third act...

One thing I have to give this film big props is the fact that end of the 2nd act where all is supposed to seem lost, this is first time in a loooonngggg time that it actually did. The ending that wasn't the ending. Maybe something was needed there to make us just feel a sense of loss or hopelessness as opposed to thinking "all gone. Oh wait, it's still going..."

Third acts to me get excessively long when you know the second act break isn't the end and we're only wasting everyone's time and insulting the audience to boot if we don't know exactly how the final mano a mano fight scene will play out.

Okay I have been wanting to post in here since Thursday and have been kind of afraid to. I have posted on this blog about how I am a fan of the character so my opinion may be biased. I think it is a great film. The ferry sequence I thought was brilliant. It echoes what Ra's Al Ghul's motivation for destroying Gotham was, that the whole city is corrupt and the people will kill each other. The passengers calling the Joker's bluff proves what Bruce was pleading for Ras to understand, that there are still good people in Gotham. He didn't kill the Joker which is perfect, specically correcting Burton's Batman by not throwing the Joker off a building to his death.

I thought the ending was really haunting. Let the people have their scapegoat in blaming Batman so they can have an actual recognizable hero left to remember. Gordon's son asking "why is he running" perfectly articulates that although yes this man has acted like a superhero the whole film: jumping off rooftops, flying through windows,he is still a man. And sometimes all a man can do is run. Seeing him run away he looked to me like an overgrown kid in a Halloween costume, facing the terrors we are too afraid to face. All because a boy saw his parents murdered. And now he is running trying to escape this twisted nightmare with scarecrows and demented clowns and half-faced monsters. He is trying to run away from the darkness of the night.

I am not trying to say I know more than anyone else here, just giving my impressions. I come to this blog because I greatly value the discussion about film this blog produces.

IO - Your TDK justifications are based on things in another film and what you think should be the next sequel, and yet you criticize people YOUR. FIRST. PARAGRAPH:

IO - ...Most of the complaints towards this film have nothing to do with the film. They are all the person's biases lashing out at something does not fit FOR THEM.

You are such a mental non-sequitur. You bash people for doing exactly what you do in defense of the film. Yet, you're so enraged at all times, you can't see it.

You use the first film to define, what? I just watched it on FX for the umpteenth time. Tell me the scene that justifies Spy Sonar? Truth is, the theme and motivations in Begins are antithetical to Spy Sonar. It goes against the argument Wayne has with Rachel, the conversation with his dad, the legacy told by Alfred and Fox. It's because of Begins that the jump to Spy Sonar is such a dramatic change in Wayne's character that it needed some fleshing out.

And here's what's so absurd - I never said it didn't work for what Nolan did with it. You read what I wrote as detrimental just so you could launch into an attack. You really don't care what I say about the film, but you need to reply to it somehow or else everything you write will be just another personal screed, which is what you really want to do.

As for OCD and Split Personality - Nolan does neither. In his interviews, he talks about grounded realism, and I'm sure he knew that a real Two-Face would make every decision by the coin, not just live or die. And a split personality would manifest itself in a much more distinct, overpowering way than what he wanted. So, he used pain - physical pain, emotional pain, - as a way to flip Dent, because once he wakes up in the hospital, he's never Harvey again.

As for Black Mask... you have not once of proof other than "personal bias fitting for you".

And the Mann reference - that was brought up weeks ago, in other threads, by people who saw this flick much earlier than you. It was brought up Dave's review. Hell, it was brought up in multiple reviews.

As for F You - split it anyway you want. So let's get to the real point of your response...

IO - YOU TRY TO BULLY ME AND I AM THE BAD GUY? You and McMahon, Blackcloud, Leahnz, and countless others post like a bunch of BULLIES and I AM THE BAD GUY? Please.

If we are all adults here. Why don't you adults realize that we cannot have discussions, when half the regular posters are looking for fights!

You guys just want to rule the roost and push anyone out who dares challenges you. SO excuse me for not standing down to a bully bitch like yourself.

I have been here for years. The majority of names you mentioned have been here longer than me, and only until you came along did this place turn into another atypical talkback.

The longest running knife-fight here is Jeff v Nicol, and they've never delved to your level.

I am simply not standing around and letting Poland get away with bullshit HE WOULD NEVER LET ANYONE ELSE GET AWAY WITH ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

What does this mean? Here's a factoid - you're not Dave's equal. You don't foot the electricity bill. You don't write copy. You don't collect links, hire writers, work with advertisers, deal with studio PR, or cover festivals. You do nothing but come here and use his wattage. If you want to try and be his equal, go open your damn site.

SMARTIN S... he works at CAA! CALL HIM UP, LEAVE A MESSAGE, AND LET HIM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL!

You know, IO - call me at CAA. And make sure to mention in your obscenity-laced rant you're IO from Dave Poland's Movie City News. If I'm in, I'll answer. And if I'm not, leave a message.

Dave - if IO's the Joker, does that make MCN Gotham?

"If we are all adults here. Why don't you adults realize that we cannot have discussions, when half the regular posters are looking for fights!"

I'm sure almost everybody here would love a discussion about the pros and cons of any movie, but when there are people like you, IO, out there who refuse to do so it becomes frustrating and intolerable. The Dark Knight is flawless to you, that's great, but it's not to other people. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, it's just our own opinions. But you seem intent on making sure everybody knows they are wrong. And not just wrong, but stupid for not "paying attention".

"No, I make my point, and I walk off. "

Exactly, you make your point and walk away without letting anybody else get theirs across. And when they do (because you technically can't walk off from the internet) you shoot them down and tell them to "not play".

And meant my "fuck you" to LexG in every possible angry way, by the way. If you're going to go around calling people psychologically disturbed then it's nothing close to what you deserve.

Moving on from that sad, sorry state.

I actually had a the Two Face thing. There wasn't enough time for Dent to become the identity of Two Face. Sure, he got his face burnt and was angry, but it didn't feel like he was Two Face, but merely somebody with only half a face who got angry. I dunno if that makes sense, sorry.

And to whoever it was who brought it up (I can't seem to refind the reply) Batman said he was going after Rachel and told Gordon to go for Dent, but The Joker gave them the swapped addresses meaning Batman accidentally went for Dent and Gordon for Dawes.

"And meant my "fuck you" to LexG in every possible angry way, by the way. If you're going to go around calling people psychologically disturbed then it's nothing close to what you deserve."

For what it's worth, I didn't call you that; I said that I found it rude that you take it upon yourself to disrupt others' moviegoing experience (citing your anecdotes about Mamma Mia and Prom Night), and opined that there was something arrogant about that. So as a side note, I pointed out how you seem to feel an urge to post or blog about each and every thought that pops into your head, you're constantly bragging about your happenin' real-world circle of friends and what a busy chap you are, you seem to bury yourself in a world of cheery music and catty attitude, and in general you come as a bit of an attention whore. As I said, it's as if you're uncomfortable being alone with your thoughts, or alone in general, and seem to need a lot of validation.

That is not to imply the leap you're making, and that's not remotely what I had in mind. First off, I don't believe in any such psychobabble and I deplore psychiatry and reaching bullshit like that. To be honest, what I had in mind was just that maybe you were afraid anyone would find you boring, so you adapted this boisterous, snippy, off-opinionated personality. Since we don't like each other and we're being blunt, the meanest thing I had in mind was just that you sort of come off like an overeager college freshman from a conservative upbringing, on his own for the first time, thinking his every thought it so revolutionary and worthy of a forum.

I didn't say "psychologically disturbed" (Why would I say that, anyway?????? We dislike each other but I tend to find you harmless and just a little snippy, to steal someone else's word.) If you thought that that's what I was implying, I don't feel I need to, but I'll apologize anyway, 'cause that would be messed up. I was mostly calling you out for being a punk by ruining people's movie at Mamma Mia.

Because this thread needs a little more vitriol, I am going to throw this out there: Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like a turtle, and I really can't imagine Bruce Wayne keeping a candle lit for her. Granted, she's a better actress than Katie Holmes (and her nipples) was, but still.

The Rachel Dawes character always felt like kind of the mandatory love interest anyway. Glad she got killed off. If they really want to do something crazy for the next movie, they could always bring in Wonder Woman in disguise as Batman's romance. Perhaps without him realizing who she is. But then, that's just geekery.

The Dark Knight - IS a Masterpiece.

Eyes Wide Shut - is most certainly NOT.

I am sure if Kubrick were alive he would agree.

Masterpiece does not equal perfect...

(Iron Man is not a masterpiece by any means either)

The Harvey Dent 3rd Act fall was necessary to emulate the Joker's point that even the best of us can fall to the worst. It tied well with the narrative.

And the fact that the Batman is

"sooo...INCORRUPTIBLE"

is the point of the character. Dark, but incorruptible.

(I love how he says that line with such disgust)

It's a masterpiece. It may take some of you a few viewings to get that, but it is.

Yeah, to get back on topic and back up THX and IO, I need to say that THIS MOVIE OWNS YOUR FUCKING ASS SO HARD IT HAS STIPULATIONS TO OWN YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY'S ASS FOR THE NEXT SIX GENERATIONS.

And I don't mean it owns like some cool shit that we were all stoked for then saw and it was decent but we have to overrate it to save face because we invested so much enthusiasm...

No, I mean DARK KNIGHT OWNS YOUR FUCKING ASS FORWARDS, SIDEWAYS AND BACK, it fucking COMMANDS YOUR ASS and makes you its puppet AND THEN IT OWNS YOU TWENTY MORE TIMES TILL YOU CRY UNCLE BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT FUCKING OWNED.

THE MOST AWESOME SHIT EVER IS THAT MANN-IAN SCORE WITH THAT DISONANT CHORD THAT GETS LOUDER AND LOUDER.

ZEUS LISTER AND MICHAEL JAI WHITE OWN.

OLDMAN OWNS.

ECKHART successfully erases the INFINITE WACKNESS of Black Dahlia off all countenance forever by OWNING TO THE NTH DEGREE.

Ledger is simply brilliant. A movie that's excellent on almost every level, and even then anytime the Joker comes in the energy level just goes through the roof -- magnetic, terrifying, funny, charismatic, AWESOME... like all great villains, he makes his horrifying schemes seem downright reasonable when he presents his twisted logic.

DID YOU NOTICE THE SHOT OF OLDMAN'S WIFE IN THE CAR WAS AN EXACT MATCH OF A MANN SHOT OF KILMER DRIVING OFF IN HEAT, AND OF PROCHNOW DRIVING TO THE CASTLE IN THE KEEP?

YOU NEED TO BOW. BOW.

Bow-wow, which I've said before.
Eyes Wide Shut is a great film. It doesn't need to be a masterpiece.

Jeff,

I am referring to Poland's Hot Button review where he says TDK is NOT a masterpiece, but claims in parentheses in the next sentence that Eyes Wide Shut IS...

That is just ass backwards and wrong for so many reasons.

Eyes is a great film, but no masterpiece.

I saw the 3:30 Imax showing at The Bridge and the ENTIRE audience sat and watched the credits with applause until the very end.

While I'm sure some industry was there, it was not comprised of industry but urban youth.

I can't remember the last time I was at a film that had that much of an audience wide effect in this day and age.

Bottom line, two people lost their lives in accordance with this Art and it is a MASTERPIECE.

One person lost their life on the set, and as a filmmaker I can't imagine having someone lose their life on my watch, whether it be a stunt accident or in this case, an electrical one.

and the other lost his to an accidental overdose that not just critics, but many inside players are attributing to the playing of this character.

Not to losing one self in the character per say, but the exhaustion and work that the actor put into this character and pushing himself right after with a bad combination and substance abuse.

It's Art and it's a Masterpiece.

I am staring at my script right now and just feel like doing a page one because Nolan fucking rocked it so hard.

Everybody has to elevate their game now after this one.

And that's a good thing.

Edit:

Not to losing one self in the character per say, but the exhaustion and work that the actor put into this character and pushing himself right after with a bad combination OF WORKING TOO HARD and substance abuse.

And the Nicholson quote of "I warned him" is not bullshit.

Ledger's performance is too good for Oscar's pandering political bullshit.

Everyone remember how Poland always says Opening weekend is never about the quality of the movie?

Well, neither are the Oscars. And that's why they're bullshit.

Wow. Did I say Bullshit enough?

EYES WIDE SHUT = best movie of 1999.

MASTERPIECE.

Lex, you didn't actually say "psychologically disturbed" but you did say this:

"KCamel's chatty Kathy routine clearly hides a dark, conflicted undercurrent and he should fess to it. I'm "on" at all times, too, but I'll fully concede it's because I'm a repressed workaday douche with an underactive social life. I get the sense the K to the CAM overcompensates in those very areas but still has essentially the same fears and anxieties."

And that was about me calling Katy Perry a homophobic slag not laughing communally at Prom Night and Pierce Brosnan singing. Don't equate me to anything even remotely similar to yourself, please. And what if I did have a conflicted undercurrent? Apparently I talk to much for your liking so why I want to share it with someone such as yourself.

And I'm not an attention whore, I'm just, to use your word, boisterous. I like telling stories, I like writing, I like discussion, I like communing with others. I mention things that happen to me in real life because I have a life to refer back to. Why shouldn't I? I like being personable. I like sharing experiences with people. It's what makes places like this fun. I'm a social person.

If you'd like me to be a quiet bore then that ain't gonna happen, just like I assume you're never going to stop talking about your cock. I ain't apologising for actually having a life filled with friends and love and music and energy. At least when people read my stuff they can be safe in the knowledge that I'm not being a complete fake and hiding my real personality.

And, really? I blog too much? That's a new one, honestly. Oh no! He's blogging TOOOOO MUUUUCCHH!!!! There's a reason I blog, it's because I want to get the things ruminating around in my brain out of there without spilling it all out on other people's blog comment sections (although I unfortunately still do that a lot too - i'm compulsive like that). You don't have to read my blog. Actually, I'd prefer you not to read it.

Sorry folks, needed to get that garbage out. You could say I thoroughly OWNED lex's arse though, right?

Not really.

Plus no one says "arse" in America.

You're right. How could I be so misguided to use my own language when talking to you considering you don't.

BONER.

Eyes Wide Shut isn't a masterpiece. But it's got a pulse. In fact, it's one of the few recent movies that can be argued as being ALL PULSE. Good on it.

But lookee here. The Dark Knight doesn't have a pulse. It doesn't have much drama. It doesn't have much story. But it DOES have plot. It DOES have themes. It DOES give its core audience plenty of space to hang all the stupid metaphors they can think of on. It's got Tiny Lister challenging us not to giggle during a crucial scene.

And again... for people who haven't seen a really good dramatically urgent pop cinema in a while (officially a year now with The Bourne Ultimatum) that may be enough.

KCamel, basically all I want to say is that your last long post unintentionally proved me correct. All I said was you were a chatty-Kathy who keeps moving fast in life... so your defense is.... to admit I never said the heinous thing you accused me of AND make a rambling post saying you're EXACTLY as boisterous as described?

Yeah, a regular OWNING you handed out there.

Really? Bourne Ultimatum?

This probably has been discussed already on some other board, but given that this is a comic book movie in the end, I am not entirely convinced Dent is dead.

And yeah Kami, here's what I found via google & AICN about David Goyer talking his proposed trilogy:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20189

I too wish that they had decided to go this route (or something similar). Still you can't really wish for something different now that the finished product is done and overall a great motion picture.

I think that Selina Kyle/Catwoman would be a great exploration in this universe - since we know Batman can't have a normal woman, why not one who is more alike him - sometimes bad-sometimes good. Obviously there was a nod to it when Lucius said his line about cats...They can't stop the franchise now, no matter how great this movie ultimately is perceived as being (as some have suggested). The third film will be the redemption of Batman right? Plus Bale's signed for a third if I'm not mistaken.

CATWOMAN SHOULD BE PLAYED BY KATY PERRY

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONER

YEP YEP

HOT CLAM.

Just because I talk a lot doesn't mean I have some dark hidden ulterior motive masking a mysterious underbelly of disturbing rage.

I hate you so much.

STOP putting words in my mouth. You are doing yourself a HUUUUUUUUUGE disservice and making yourself look really bad.

And obviously if you're THAT unsettled by some tool on the Internet speculating about your personality... again, you're giving more credence to my nonexistent accusations by getting that torn up over it.

The question stands: Do you ever enjoy a day, a night, a week with your own thoughts, no phone, no friends, no blogging? What would be so wrong with PLAYING IT PLAINVIEW for a period of time? PLAINVIEW DIDN'T NEED FRIENDS. HE DIDN'T NEED MUSIC. HE DIDN'T NEED A BLOG.

AND PLAINVIEW IS GOD. HE IS YOUR GOD. BOW.

THAT'S who you should aspire to be.

I wouldn't get so caught up in it if I didn't have to deal with you and your obnoxious rantings every time I come here. It's easy to ignore the tools when they're the kind that get their pathetic thrill and then buzz off, but it's not easy when you refuse to leave like a bad smell.

Shut up with your stupid bowing bullshit. Christ, I hate you so much.

Keep running that mouth and I will fucking RUN SHIT on YOUR BLOG posting this shit. BelIEEEEEVE that. Believe it. You don't even KNOW what an OWNING is, son. So stop accusing me of shit I didn't say RIGHT NOW, or you will wake to 34788888 LexG posts on your little blog.

DIGIRIDOOO, RABBIT-PROOF DOUCHE,

YOU JUST GOT SERVED, BITCH.

Camel: how can I have a discussion with people who miss the obvious? Go to one of Martin's torrent sites, find a copy of the film, and check out the look on Dent's face when he realizes that he cannot save Rachael. It's all right there.

Again, it does not make your stupid, but it does make your oblvious to what's happening on screen. Spend two years obsessiving over a show, and you will get these skills as well. Until then: there's no discussion to have when you are not even seeing what I am seeing.

Crow: it's really that easy? Yeah... you are a regular Leslie Feist with the way you FEEL IT ALL!

Let us now respond to Pudge:

1) If this movie is a sequel. THE FIRST FILM IS CANON! Hello... wakey wakey... Pudge and my justifications are not justifications. It's a masterpiece. I am just extrapolating. I know that's a big word that scares you, but look it up. You might be able to use it one day.

2) And it's BULLSHIT! Criticism should not be based on one's self, but the art itself. If you want to complain... complain... but do not state they are criticisms when they are really complaints. Semantics, Pudge. Semantics.

3) Lex... tell Pudge; "WRONG!" This sort of psycho-analysis from the likes of a CAA agent with pudgy fingers... cracks me up. Stick to writing contracts. You lack the abilities needed for this environment and THANK FUCKING GOD! YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL! YOU HAVE CLIENTS, AN OFFICE, AND A ASSITANT! If you had the ability to fucking spare online. I would seriously wonder why CAA kept you employeed.

4) EXTRAPOLATE! Why would he create the Bat-Sonar? Hmmm... he was pushed, but he knew when to stop. Dent was pushed, but lacked the same restraint. This is why you suck at this, because you cannot put two and two together.

5) Lex, tell Pudge again... "WRONG!"

If you want to feel this way. You once again need to realize you are an agent, not a psychologist, and have no idea what my motives are or are intended to be. Did you ever think that this is chaos? Did you?

6) We sort of agree on this point.

7) EXTRAPOLATE! Look at the end of the film. The entire syndicate of Gotham is wiped out. There's a power vaccum. I know that you are not on the creative side of things, but go read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mask_(comics) . Excuse me for putting two and two together before two and two needed to be put together.

8) Oh darn... a guy can be wrong and I was wrong.

9) I explained it already.

10) Luthor, tell him again; "WRONG!"

I have been here from day one. Outside of those two years, where I went a discovered how to find the world inside of minutiae... few have been here as long as me.

So, really, you are sort of infringing on Jeff and I's personal argument from the day Poland started this blog years ago.

11) Wrong. Jeff and I have disliked one another for close to 3 years. I have the emails to prove it.

12) It's an open forum. This means we are all on the same level. Unless he wants to assign moderators or become an obsessive like Mrs. Finke. This forum is ruled on "RUN WHAT YOU BRUNG".

This means my piddly ass can argue with an agent who pulls up his own Google Image result.

13) Oh, I am not the bad guy, but I am the guy. We will hopefully meet one day, I will prove you wrong, and we might share a donut. You look like a guy who may enjoy a good donut. Good bless you for that sir.

Nevertheless, the olive branch still stands. If you want to be cool. We can be cool. If you do not want to be cool. Post shit like Margo! YOU ARE MAD MARGO! THIS DOES NOT DO ANYTHING FOR YOU?

http://www.agentprovocateur.com/denna.php

She has it where it counts.

KATIE HOLMES OWNS.

KNOW.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading right now.

"I ain't apologising for actually having a life filled with friends and love and music and energy."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

WHAT'S UP, SON????
SAY SOME MORE SHIT, G.D.

AND FULLY EXPECT TO GET OWNED.
I FUCKING DARE YOU.

I'LL BE ON THAT BLOG LIKE YOU WON'T BELIEVE, SON.

BATMAN SHOULD SERVE KATY P.'S HOT ASS THAT WOULD OWN.

Watch out camel! Lex has decided to drink a beer, cheet on his wife, and throw DOWN ON YER HEAD WITH THE BRIMSTONE OF A MASTER!

MORE LIKE 13 BEERS.

NOW CRACKING 13. I OWN. DRINKING RULES.

DRINKING = AWESOME. DRINK UP, ALL BITCHES.

FUCKING ALCOHOL OWNS.

This is ridiculous. This place ain't worth it sometimes, I tell ya.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Kamikaze isn't getting his waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

He's not the most SPECIALEST person ever with all his UNIQUE thoughts.

You reap what you sow, and when you FLAT-OUT LIE ABOUT PEOPLE, you get OWNED.

Whassamatter, leahnz and jeff aren't around to back you up and fight your battles for you? You LYING LIAR. Shameless little weasel.

Can't take some confrontation, Mr. Snippy? Mr. Catty? Mr. Opinion? Speak up, son, I'm waiting.

Lying liar? You're a modern day Oscar Wilde. Or, perhaps more apt, a modern day Yahoo Serious.

GEE I feel the need to make a LONG post after eating some STALE POPCORN and listening to GLENN Danzig.

Be lightin' that shithole up any moment.

OH, YEAH....

THREE COLLEGE DEGREES, BITCH.

Your blog is BORING AS FUCK. Why is OH FATHER your favorite Madonna song? Tell us, GD.

Firstly, "Oh Father" isn't my favourite Madonna song, secondly "Oh Father" is about an abusive father so do you really want to go there you insensitive fuckwit.

That sentence required a comma before "you insensitive fuckwit," and it also required a question mark at the end.

See, I am smarter than you. It's called an education. Look into it. If you're going to commit your every THOROUGHLY MUNDANE THOUGHT to paper, you should at least learn punctuation skills that a 9-year-old should have.

You're a horrible monster. Like, you are actually a monster. There's no other word for it.

I offered you quarter, I offered you a chance to step up and admit your LIES, and all I got was more attitude and bullshit. So you get OWNED.

Put me on PAYROLL, POLAND. MAKE ME THE KING OF THIS BLOG.

LEXG'S IRON-HOT BLOG.

WHAT THE FUCK IS UP, NIKKI FINKE? WANNA HANG OUT, HOTNESS?

I enjoyed the film a great deal, and it's probably the best comic book superhero flick I've ever watched. But I would like to take a moment to say what I think was the strongest asset of the film, and that would be the writing. Ledger's character would've been just another psychotic bad guy if the writers hadn't made him into the anarchist philosopher he's portrayed as in the movie. There were parts of the film where I sat back and realized that this was a villain the likes of which we have never seen on screen before in a superhero film, and that's precisely what the Joker needed to be. And that's also precisely what the superhero genre needed -- a nice swift kick in the pants towards the realization of villains that aren't so much crazy as they are (funhouse) mirror images of the villains of the real world.

I still can't get over how good the writing was for a comic book movie. Every character was downright interesting, which I found refreshing. Everyone had to make compromises throughout this film, and not many of them came out looking as dashing as they did going into it. It's like Christopher Nolan (the writer and director) decided to take all the fluff and excess of the first film and toss it out in lieu of film noir and crime drama elements, which is absolutely perfect for a Batman film. I especially appreciated the comment from one character about how silly it would be for it all to come down to a fistfight to see who wins -- the exact same fistfight that ended the first film. It was a fresh take from most all angles of the superhero film, and I don't think comic book enthusiasts could ask for much more.

Has anybody gone back to the original Batman recently to see how Nicholson's version of the character holds up. Because when I rewatched it early last year I remember not being particularly enthused by it. And then I read that he was subject to Oscar buzz and thought that was really strange. Yet I can totally see what there is in Ledger's that, even if he hadn't have died, there would be a push for awards.

IO - If this movie is a sequel. THE FIRST FILM IS CANON! Hello... my justifications are not justifications.

Yes, they are justifications. Any sequel or not attempts to stand on its own legs. Some do it well, others totally rely on what's come before. Sith needs Clones, LOTR needs each previous, but Aliens does not need Alien.

Why do you think Kevin Smith called TDK "the Godfather Part 2" of superhero films? Because it's a sequel? No. Because it's such a strong film it doesn't need Begins to exist. That's also the reason Nolan was adamant WB drop Batman from the title; Because he felt the movie could stand on its own without bringing any outside knowledge. It's also why he didn't care if Holmes came back or not. She would have, for more money, but the continuity didn't matter to him. It's also why he didn't care for Gotham architectural continuity - he changed the whole city's layout and dropped the aesthetic created in Begins because it was superfluous to TDK.

In other words, he wasn't pandering to your crowd.

Bubble If you want to complain... complain... but do not state they are criticisms when they are really complaints.

I agree with that, IO. But don't praise by referencing things "outside" the frame of the damn movie. It's the exact same practice for different results. Whatever occurs in that 2.5 hours is it. Not Begins. Not the comic. Just what is on the screen. And you never do that. Not for Inc. Hulk. and now, not for TDK. And when you get called out for it, you light up people that are not bowing to your breadth of useless information.

3. Garbage. The attempt to drag Lex in is just to try and blow the thread up even more.

he was pushed, but he knew when to stop. Dent was pushed, but lacked the same restraint.

Again, you did not read what I initially wrote. Yes, Wayne was pushed and it was apart of Nolan's "escalation" theme, but Spy Sonar was in effect before Rachel was killed. Chronologically, he did it shortly after returning from Hong Kong - when things were not out of control.

So the two do not add up. Wayne the character escalated before he needed to, but Wayne as apart of the overall theme did it at the appropriate time in the script. It was a cheat brought about by merging two stories into one film.

5. It's not psychology. It's a pattern. You have a predictable pattern.

6. We sort of agree on this point

How? You said -

The real-world is a man flipping a coin to take a piss? If he's OCD. You are so determine to put off this figurative air of having a good damn clue, that you cannot differentiate between SPLIT PERSONALITIES AND FUCKING OCD! Thus making this entire fucking paragraph completely and utterly... negated.

And now we agree? You were arguing for split personality so I pointed out he did neither. Whatever.

7. Excuse me for putting two and two together before two and two needed to be put together.

Everyone remember this.

The next time IO comes at you for something he sees as "Criticism...based on one's self", remember he admits to praising a film by second-guessing future decisions. The exact same thing for Inc. Hulk.

Think about how great of a tactic this is; he gets to rail on people now for not having his knowledge, for not being able to "understand", yet it will be years before any sequel sees light of day, so during that time, people will forget and he won't have to answer for being wrong.

8. You're only admitting you're wrong because the initial attempt to take credit, and the ease to disprove it, showcases your self-importance.

9.I explained it already

Ohhhh, I see. It's "everyone elses fault" that they don't own a computer that has emotive font capabilties. This way, a "general" F-you could be parsed from a hostile F-You and you won't be taken out of context.

10. Once again, run to Lex. Now, get Jeff in the mix. Hurry! Everyone pile in! Save IO from burning and crashing for a third time in a month!

12. Dave "IS" the moderator. It's his responsibility. He doesn't care to do it because as long as everyone keeps showing, positive or negative, the hit count remains the same. Once attendance starts tailspinning, then he'll find the time.

13. What utter gibberish. Another egomaniacal veiled threat attempted to be defused with "olive branch" talk. All that means from a nobody like you is "your with me or against me".

Cam - I watched a chunk of it on ABCFamily last night. What I'm really amazed at is how the Nolan's went and used so many Joker scenarios from it but within a different structure and context.

* Falling from a building
* Meeting the crime bosses and killing a crime figure with a gag to take control of the meeting
* Going after one crime boss to put others in line
* Dangling the heroine off a ledge
* Using television as a communicative medium
* Using the people of Gotham to spread anarchy
* Planning on mass murder for a final act
* Using money and reward to spread chaos
* Going after the heroine in a public place
* Challenging Batman to take his mask off for the public good
* Staring down Batman as he approaches in a high-powered vehicle

Ha ha, Martin S. I got sucked into watching it on ABC family too last night even though I was supposed to be working (and I have the DVD).

I did notice alot of your points while I was watching it, and while I always thought the first (1989) was the best Batman movie, it really kind of seems like a hokey cartoon in terms of the character development.

I also remember as a kid that people thought it was so "dark"!

Nicholson's version of the character holds up when he's not joking. Then he was scary. Like in the "cafe scene" with Basinger. Whenever he stopped grimacing/laughing then he became menacing.

As much as I love Prince, the entire purple rain thing in the movie makes it age, and the music is effective when it's orchestral.

I caught it last night, too. Some things have aged well--Danny Elfman's score (I still hear his music when I think Batman movie), Keaton's performance, the Batmobile, Nicholson when he's not clowning--but overall the movie has not up. It's much more cartoon-like, as Lota said. The atmosphere is artificial and very stagy; it doesn't help that it looks like everything was shot on a set. The retro look has not held up; it would have worked better if they'd set it directly in the late '80s. The versions of Gordon and Alfred then don't bear comparison to the new incarnations. The sensibility of the movie is very different from the Nolan ones. That's both a product of the passage of time, and of the respective approaches to the material. I haven't seen "Returns" in ages, but I suspect it holds up better. I'll have to see.

Martin, you really must be new to this INTERNET DISCUSSION thing, because you are horrible at it. Absolutely horrible. You even dare to believe that you understand me, when I am as honest as people come. So... if you want to be cool. We can be cool. One does not have to fight forever, but you seem to be on a crusade. Against me? Really? Me?

It would be understandable if you got how things worked on this net, but you do not. This is the main example. You wrote; "The next time IO comes at you for something he sees as "Criticism...based on one's self", remember he admits to praising a film by second-guessing future decisions. The exact same thing for Inc. Hulk.

Think about how great of a tactic this is; he gets to rail on people now for not having his knowledge, for not being able to "understand", yet it will be years before any sequel sees light of day, so during that time, people will forget and he won't have to answer for being wrong."

This is how the NET WORKS. You talk about the current movie in parts, but you try to figure out how it FITS in the grander scheme of things. You try to EXTRAPOLATE from this film where they will go in the next film.

How you fail to get how this works and get frustrated by this, is rather understandable, but completely ridiculous in terms of the forum. THIS IS THE INTERNET. RIGHT NOW... there are threads with the title "VILLAINS FOR THE NEXT BATMAN MOVIE". This is how it works.

So either get that I am never going to obsess on the now, and will always focus on the future. This is how it works. If it angers you, again, sorry, but it's your anger. Unlike you, I am not going to attempt to figure out how you work.

Oh yeah... one last thing... LEX LUTHOR! Not LEX! Again, extrapolate and expand, that's how it works. See? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f05S9x7BarE&feature=related .

This is certainly one of the most insane threads yet. And when I say insane, I mean 'loony and irrational'.
PS: Lex, when you wake up all headachey, I want you to read that you're a huge asshole.

Surprise, McMahon butts in for a last-word prickish comment even though none of this was about him. SHERIFF McMAHON, HOT BLOG COP to the rescue. Since you seem to have a LOT OF FREE TIME, LONELY MAN, maybe you ought to spend your Sunday trying to purchase a sense of humor, a personality, a hooker, or a one-way ticket back to Colorado.

I'd be LIGHTING UP your blog, but it would be a lost cause, since YOU AVERAGE ZERO COMMENTS PER POST. Why do you bother?

And as IO has repeatedly stated, I love how this little nerd crew of KCamel and Jeff and Leah (I have nothing against her, but IO usually includes her) act like they have a moral high ground, when they're as pissy, unpleasant, rude, hostile, and CREEPY as anyone on this bitch. Guys are like little tattly busybodies, just no fun at all, always getting in these snide jabs that you can't back up.

Everyone make sure, if you still haven't, to CHECK OUT JEFF'S IMDB PAGE THAT HE CREATED HIMSELF, COMPLETE WITH TRIVIA!!!!!!!!!

ALL THE JOBS ARE STUDENT FILMS THAT WOULD NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER GET ON IMDB unless the makers and participants added them, and even then, they wouldn't list the low-level post jobs Jeff added.

Plus, again, HE CREATED HIS OWN TRIVI