JUST saw Dark Knight. Holy moses was it ever good. If you liked Batman Begins GO SEE THIS MOVIE. In fact, if you like movies GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

As I mentioned in the Watchmen thread, I have never been a DC comic person. I never read them, I never watched the TV shows, I never liked the previous Batman movies or cartoons or anything. I reluctantly watched Batman Begins with my (now) boyfriend because we were just starting to date and I wanted to impress him. It turned out to be one of THE best movies I've seen in a very long time. Until tonight.

Dark Knight is good on so many levels. It's got all the mindless wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am action that an action movie lover needs. It has all the romance and lovey-dovey crap all the chicks who were forced to go need. On top of all that it has a pervading intelligence and sense of purpose and depth regarding what constitutes good and evil and the grey areas between. I loved how the movie juxtaposed the good and bad in human nature with the Reed incident and the boat incident. I found Joker's speech in the interrogation room about Batman and at the end of the boat scene very reminiscent of Dr Glass' speech to Bruce Willis in Unbreakable (again pointing out the perpendiculars of human nature and how every person has a foil).

I went into the movie with an open mind, trying not to buy into all the "Heath Ledger is so awesome because he died" crap, but I must say that his performance was AMAZING. He deserves all the hype he has been given. No one is going to want to tackle that character in the next movie (because you KNOW there has to be a next movie). His mannerisms, his speech, his everything was so amazing...had I not known it was Ledger I would have never known it was Ledger, and that's the mark of a truly good actor.

Anyway, I'm done gushing. There were a few things that bothered me in there, such as Dent's lips (if you saw it you know what I mean, if not, you'll see) and Maggie Gyllenhall (or however you spell that)'s uninspiring performance (I hate to say it, but Katie Holmes was WAY better). It also seemed like the movie was 5 hours long because just when you thought it was over more stuff got blown up (not that it's really a bad thing, I was just fooled into thinking it was over many many times before it actually was). Also, I hate it when movies give Rottweilers a bad name.

Who else saw it? What did you all think!?

Yeah, yeah.... I haven't gotten around to seeing "Incredible Hulk", either. I feel like I should see this before I go to the San Diego Comic-Con this weekend, but time's tight like a midget's ho-ho.

I actually thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was a VAST improvement over Katie Holmes. Gyllenhaal was believable as A) an adult and B) a lawyer. Katie Holmes was not believable in either situation. Holmes always seemed like a teenager trying to act grown up to me.

And yeah, the film was phenomenal. The mirroring between both villains and Batman layered the story in ways that took me a few days to unravel, and the Joker set up situations to insure that he never lost. Absolute brilliance in the screenwriting. It's actually the polar opposite of Raimi's script for Spiderman 3.

Just to continue discussion, I'm amazed and stunned by the amount of people who didn't get what was going on in the movie. A lot of people are calling Harvey Dent the "Venom" of The Dark Knight, when his storyline was what drove the movie, and brought it full circle.

I'm also amazed at my uncle, who liked Nicholson better as the Joker. *groan*

EDIT: I sound kinda douchebaggish in this post by groaning about my Uncle's bad taste, don't I?

I'm kind of bummed about the fate of Dent, myself, but I can't explain why without giving the movie away. I think if the directors knew that Ledger was going to die they would have ended the movie differently, let's put it that way, because I don't think any actor in their right mind is going to try to pull of the Joker after THAT performance. However, Dent's fate in the movie makes Batman make sense in a way that they TRIED to do with Spiderman but failed miserably in. Batman, as Gordon says in the end, isn't a "hero," but rather is whatever Gotham needs him to be. That statement verifies Batman's place in Gotham and his place on the Good-Evil continuum.

It's a very different view of the superhero than you see in Marvel (well, at least the recently made Marvel movies, ala Spiderman, XMen, Iron Man, etc) where the line between good and evil is a straight and clear line in the sand. As I mentioned, they tried to bring up the hero-as-vigilante theme in Spiderman but didn't do a very good job because, in the end, Spiderman is in the right and is lauded as a hero. Even in the XMen trilogy, which is still my favourite superhero movies ever, although they tried to blur the line a little with Magneto in the second one, there is still that clear dichotomy between good and evil. It's very idealistic and hopeful but nothing like real life.

However, that being said, I do think that the point of Marvel differs from that of Batman. For the most part, Marvel comics have a running theme of uniqueness, differentness, and the fear people have of things they don't understand. The majority of Marvel characters struggle with being different and misunderstood, and come to find their purpose among other people who are like them and who use their talents and gifts to better the world (whether or not they are heros or villains - the heros actually DO better the world, the villians think they are making the world better). Good and evil is very cut and dried in these stories, but that's not the point. The point is to show people that everyone is unique in their own way and all of our talents can be used differently for the good of all.

Wow. I really got off track there. I guess what I'm saying is that this interpretation of Batman is closer to reality than the usual superhero movie. The point Gordon seems to make at the end is that there is no real "good" or "evil," but a gradient of grey. What one person perceives as "good" or "evil" depends on where they are standing on the gradient. The goodness or evilness of Batman doesn't matter, according to Gordon, what matters is that Batman is what Gotham needs him to be. If Gotham needs a villain to chase to make themselves feel safe, then so be it.

I feel like I'm rambling or if I continue I'm going to give the ending away or something, so I'm going to stop.

I do have a question, though, for you Batman comic readers. During the show, Joker gives two or three different reasons for his scars. Do any of you know what the "real" reason is? My bf mentioned something about a chemical spill, but he wasn't really sure. Also, how accurate is the creation and end-of-the-movie state of Dent compared to the comic-book story? I'm always interested to see how close they keep to the comics and how badly they screw the "real" story up (ala X3).

There have been, if I recall correctly, several explanations for why the Joker looks like he does. In the comics, though, he doesn't have the scars around his mouth.

As for Dent, I'm not sure if that's exactly how he became Two-Face. I think the creation of Two-Face, though, is one that isn't necessary to maintain the physical means as long as you have the emotional and psychological trauma that creates Two-Face.

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT:

The thing that makes the movie great is that the Joker gets what he wants either way. If Dent is revealed as a murderer, his legacy and heroic ideal are tarnished forever. If Batman takes the fall, his heroic ideal is tarnished as well. Either way, Gotham loses a hero. That's what made the Joker so phenomenal. He was thinking ahead in every situation. He wanted to be arrested so he could blow up the police station. He gave Batman the wrong address so that Rachel would die and bring out Harvey's bad side.

Also, Dent is the perfect foil to Batman. Both are heroes for the city, but they use different methods. Dent is the White Knight using the system, Batman is the Dark Knight vigilanteworking outside it. Dent is a humble and respectable public servant, Wayne the arrogant and irresponsible playboy. Dent "makes his own luck" while Batman prepares enough that he doesn't leave much to chance. Both are driven at what they do, and both lose people they love to tragedy. Wayne becomes driven to prevent it from happening to others, and Dent goes for Revenge.

Basically, it's an incredible tragic story that works on levels comic book movies haven't been able to achieve. It's basically the "Watchmen" of Comic book films.

Can I just say Daniel Day Lewis for Joker in the next Batman movie?

He's no Heath Ledger, but after seeing his performance in "There Will Be Blood" I don't think there's a better choice out there for a new Joker. Him or Johnny Depp.

I don't think there's a need for the Joker in the next one

As I pointed out before, anyone in Hollywood who tries to match or exceed Ledger's performance as The Joker, or who even accepts the job, is crazy. I'm looking forward to seeing who the next villain is and the continuation of this franchise.

I saw this twice while on vacation. I saw it on a Sunday, when my fiance was in town and it was raining like hell. And then I saw it again on Friday, when my friend was up to visit and it was raining like hell. Yeah, it was kind of a shitty week.

Aside from a couple of minor gripes (didn't care for the lack of clarity in the climatic moment with Harvey, Gordon, family, and Bats) I thought this was absolutely fantastic. It's rewarding to get a Batman franchise like this after waiting for years to see what Warner Bros. would do after the Batman and Robin fiasco.

Finally saw it. I've tried twice to see it on an IMAX screen and both times it was sold out.

Anyways.... Joker was enormously creepy and pretty formidable in a fight, too. All previous Jokers have, physically, been wimps. As soon as Batman got his hands on him, you knew he was beaten. So I liked how this Joker could stand up to Bats a little.

I think they got his character right, too. He's just an insane freak. With his twisted schemes and tactics, he had a little of Hannibal Lecter and Dennis Hopper (I'm thinking of "Speed") in him. Jack Nicholson's Joker started a trend that villains can steal the show sometimes. Guys like Anthony Hopkins' Lecter took it a step further. Some of the stuff they did, you kinda' wished the Joker had done in 1989. They did deeds that were worthy of a truly SICK Joker... not the wacky slapstick versions that had been seen before. Yes, those versions had their merits, but Heath Ledger's Joker was simply sadistic. And it worked.

I also liked how they played off the dichotomy of the "Dark Knight" with "Gotham's White Knight", Harvey Dent. I didn't expect to see this much of Dent/Two-Face in this flick, but it was much better than I could have hoped. I'm glad they covered his story, too. When Dent was scarred in the hospital bed, I thought the movie was wrapping up and my main thought was: "oh shit...I don't want to wait three years and come back for a movie about fucking TWO-FACE!" (along with Penguin, one of my least-favorite Bat-villains). So I'm glad they completed his story in this movie. As interesting as the Dent story was, I don't think it could've driven another sequel on its own.

Biggest compliment I can give the movie is how it completely ignored any cutesy comic connections and just RAN with the concept. It didn't have a goofy comic book ending like "Batman Begins" (the far-fetched sci-fi bomb that would destroy a city. Which actually brought down what had been a cool movie until that point). They made these characters believable. Especially Jim Gordon, who was given much more exposure and characterization that any TV or movie version we've seen.

I alos liked the touches of continuity, with the Scarecrow and the absence of Wayne Manor (remember, it had been torched, last movie).

Probably my only complaint was Christian Bale's "Batman voice". Sure, that's part of Batman's act...and Kevin Conroy nailed it in the 90's cartoons... but it sounded riciculous on Bale. Almost a caricature of Conroy's work. I also thought Lucius Fox's sonar contraption was a little tough to follow. While an interesitng gimmick and playing into the whole "bat" motif, I thought it detracted from the climactic hostage scene. Seeing CGI wireframe blueprints of everything was tough on my head.

I was thoroughly satisifed with this flick. Yet I'm left to wonder: how can they follow this up?

Oh, and Jillie: in the comics, Dent was scarred with acid in a courtroom. A guy on the wintess stand threw it at him. Very similar to an early scene in "The Dark Knight", where a guy tries to shoot him. That was the original concept...but in the past 15 years it's been modified to have one of Carmine Falcone's stooges do it. Yet in either case, the Joker had nothing to do with it.

For Joker... there is no "true origin". That's what's great about him and something the movie nailed (notice how they had NO record of him, even after fingerprints).

There is the thing about the chemical spill, which is the closest "origin" he's ever had. Basically, he was an unknown struggling comedian and joined up with some mobsters for a quick score. The gimmick was that someone in the gang had to wear "the Red Hood" mask. So they robbed a chemical plant, the (future) Joker was impaired by the mask and fell into a vat of chemicals which scarred him, turned his face white and sent him over the edge. Tim Burton's 1989 movie has a similar version of this.

While many Batman fans will swear the Red Hood is the Joker's origin...it's never been confirmed. Sometimes, the current idiots at DC Comics will swear to it, as well.
But like we saw in "the Dark Knight", the Joker could be making the whole thing up. He's bat-shit crazy and does things for the sake of chaos. Life's just a big joke to him.

Aw frick... after watching this movie last night, with all of Joker's crazy schemes, I get into work this morning and get THIS email sent to us: