Dark Knight, The (Blu-ray)

Great review guys! Obviously I tend to lean more to what John said. However, I did like the fact that it was a long movie, like I did with The Departed.

...As "nitpicky" as one can be regarding picture quality, so can a reviewer when he or she reviews what I consider to be a "perfect" film. 10/10.

I liked John's point of view and did not find it nitpicky whatsoever. He said he liked it and gave it a 7, and he pointed reasons that it would not deserve a 10. I feel as he does -- it's a good film and one of the best in its genre, but as an overall movie it's not the masterpiece that some people have made it out to be.

the batpod is awesome. otherwise, this movie blows.

John, why is the success of "The Dark Knight" the thrust of your review? So what if it was the most financially successful film of 2008? There's always one blockbuster per year that accomplishes that. Your conclusion to lay it all on Ledger's portrayal doesn't seem right either. I just think it was a confluence of all the points you covered and more which made 'Knight' an event picture, but ultimately it all ties into Chris Nolan. Not taking anything away from Ledger as Joker. He's was undeniably sensational. Epic. The Joker being the most popular villain in comics, and Batman VS Joker is always going to be a top live action draw, even for those who don't follow comic books. There was also the good will left behind by "Batman Begins," which I suspect many more people discovered on DVD and cable also factored in.

I personally feel Nolan is the chief reason for the success of TDK, though it may not seem as special. He's the chief architect, his hands in every aspect of the film. He had the foresight to cast Ledger and helped in the creation of this Joker. You pointed out Nolan favors too many quick edits and swirling camera movements. In TDK, I thought those touches only heightened the tension and sense of anarchy so it felt right. I also didn't feel lost on any of the character's motivations. They were pretty clear to me. As for the Joker, I'm not so sure his motivations should have been as clear, though you could tell he enjoyed psychologically carving people up to see how they work and do his bidding.

Lastly, you question the plot, the characters, the cast, the costumes, the settings, and the action, equaling the quality of Nolan's first "Batman" movie. I think more importantly the quality continues, in some instances more so, to add up to a rewarding experience, as you stated.

"John, why is the success of 'The Dark Knight' the thrust of your review? ...Your conclusion to lay it all on Ledger's portrayal doesn't seem right either." --JSWELL

To answer your first question, I decided to make the film's financial success a talking point because I liked the idea. I thought it was different and would make for a more novel and interesting way to approach the film. Every piece of writing needs an angle, a gimmick if you will, to set it apart. That was mine. Sorry you didn't care for it.

As far as my laying the film's success all on Ledger, that was, in fact, not my conclusion. My actual "conclusion" stated 'there is still the movie's cumulative effect to consider. The plot, the characters, the cast, the costumes, the settings, and the action, whether they equal the quality of Nolan's first 'Batman' movie or not, continue to add up to a rewarding experience."

In other words, I think the movie is a collabortive effort, with each actor and each filmmaker doing his and her part to make it successful. But I also think Ledger happened to play the biggest part in the collaboration.

John

John, do you think Ledger will be nominated for an Oscar? If so, do you think he'll win?
I thought he should have received one for "Brokeback Mountain". I think he will win for 'Dark Knight'.

I hope he's nominated, and I'd like to see him win. He's certainly as good in his role as anyone I saw this year in anything else. On the other hand, I didn't see every film released this year.

John

Yes, Heath Ledger is the closest the Oscars have to a lock this year. He certainly wouldn't be my pick, but it was a strong performance even if half of it involved sticking out his tongue a lot.

Do any of you remember what happened on the summer of 2002? Of a very interesting property called Spider-Man? Do you remember that it was just a couple of months after 9/11?

Now fast-forward six years, a fight on terror gone bad, the economy gone bad, and the historical presidential campaign...so what you get? TDK making $500 million...

But Spider-man was not released a couple months after 9/11. It was released May 3rd of 2002, 8 months after 9/11. I remember them having to stop one of the previews because it showed the twin towers. There were also movie posters that Sony Pictures reclaimed because the twin towers were prominent in the picture. Not all posters were recovered and are now considered valuable collectors items.

mvckalel: Do any of you remember what happened on the summer of 2002? Of a very interesting property called Spider-Man? Do you remember that it was just a couple of months after 9/11?

Now fast-forward six years, a fight on terror gone bad, the economy gone bad, and the historical presidential campaign...so what you get? TDK making $500 million...



Does anybody know what this means?

I'm not going to say that the Joker made the film what it is it was the unfortunate passing of Heath Ledger that stoked interest in the performance. And it is his character's machinations which fuel the plot.

That said, the intricate plot and overall intelligence of the script is what elevated the Dark Knight. Also, I feel the decision to keep the set pieces to a minimum gave the film a real world feel that generally doesn't exist in "comic book" movies

Christian Bale as Batman and Bruce Wayne is far more interesting than any of his predecessors. All Michael Keaton ever did was brood in his mansion waiting for the Bat-Signal to light up. In The Dark Knight, Wayne actually does things to impact Gotham City (ie. backing Harvey Dent, saving the Commisioner's life)
And the supporting cast more than carries the load, especially Gary Oldman as Commisioner Gordon. He's the one sure footed character, whose motives and loyalty are never in question.

My only complaint is that Rachel wasn't played by Maggie Gyllenhaal in the first film, as Rachel had more to do in Batman Begins.

As far as the convoluted plot, it makes perfect sense if you watch the film a second (and third!) time. Only exception, I think, is Gordon's "death", which was never explained properly. Still this is one of the best films of the year and definitely a superior action film to anything Hollywood has produced in years.

I'm talking about the financial success, and why the movie was as big as it was. I believe that both Spider-Man and The Dark Knight had the same success because of what was happening in the country overall. Joker was the second factor.

I don't see either correlation to be honest.

Spider-Man is part of the big three super heroes that have become household names. It was the first major motion picture about the web slinger. It had mass appeal. You had today's kids, the die hard comic-con crowd, and multiple generations of adults who grew up being a fan. And I'm sure it looked like an entertaining movie to anybody who didn't fit the above mentioned categories.

I remember the hype but I don't remember any of it having to do with 9/11.

As far as TDK, the election, and the economy I'm completely lost.

There were definitely strong post- 9/11 themes within TDK, but is that really what people were talking about before and after viewing the movie?

What exactly can you attribute the success of Shrek 2 (2004), Revenge of the Sith (2005), and Dead Man's Chest (2006) to?