Finally!

Just saw it last night and I what an entertaining flick this was. A worthy sequel and a great second act (like Empire Strikes Back). Having said that, I do have some issues with this movie:

1) Heath Ledger. Don't get me wrong, Ledger was nothing less than fantastic and it pains me that we'll never see him perform again. I mean, he just stole the hell out of that show. But in my book that is somewhat problematic cos' he COMPLETELY outshone Christian Bale and, as a result of that, The Joker completely outshone Batman.

I'm a Frank Miller type of Batman guy and I therefore wanted Batman to be much more darker than he actually was in this movie. He should be just as dark as The Joker but with that one human trait that set them apart. To me, Batman/Bruce Wayne in this movie was completely cardboard - it's not that he wasn't fighting his own demons, cos' he was, I just don't think they managed to pull it off right (not as well as they did in Batman Begins at least).

2) The length. I agree that this movie was too long but that's mainly down to the fact that it was rather repetitive in certain areas. I mean, people were getting abducted left and right in this movie in a rather Deux Ex Machina kinda way. Also, pretty much every "plan" The Joker had involved explosives - and it seemed overly easy for him to plant ANFO bombs everywhere (even if it is in Gotham).

3) The scene in Hong Kong. When the hell did Batman turn into Ethan Hunt? WTF?

That being said, this movie is the best I've seen in 2008 - but it could have been better. One of the more possitive thing I took from this movie, besides Ledgers performance, was Aaron Eckhart. I've never been a big fan of him - at least not until I saw Thank You For Smoking - but his performance in this movie really made me a believer. He was damn good! Oldman carried his role from Batman Begins into this movie with incredible easy which makes Jim Gordon such a believable character. The Rachel Dawes character was boring in the first movie and contiued to be boring in this sequel. Even though the charater plays an important role in both Bruce Wayne's and Harvey Dent's lives, she still didn't offer a whole lot to this movie other than being cannon fodder.

I'm looking forward to the third Batman movie and I'm wondering which villian they'll bring to the table. I'm hoping to see Scarecrow again, not so much because of the character but because Cillian Murphy is such a talented actor. I just hope Nolan doesn't make the mistake Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher made and turn all villians into cartoon characters (but I'm pretty sure he won't).

That's it James! At the movie Batman Begings, the voice of Mr Bale is natural, not the hoarse voice of the new movie (The dark knight.) Maybe Mr Wayne got a great flu, isn't it?

Anyway, the new movie is the best one of the sequel and the all movies based on the Comics...In my simple opinion, of course.

Good not great imo. Probably the best superhero film ever made, which is certainly something but it was strangely under-entertaining.

"By the time Gyllenhall met her end I was just not feeling anything – and if I’m not feeling anything at a point such as that then there is something wrong.  The whole two-face thing at the end should not have been included in this film and they should have wrapped it up way before the boat scenario (which incidentally did nothing for me and should have been a great source of tension)."

I agree with this assessment.

I didn't even feel a twinge of remorse for Rachel and that shows something was lacking. Likewise the boat scene was poorly handled. At no point was there ever any real tension when it could have been incredibly action packed and intense.

I love Christian Bale, but the voice threw me out of the film whenever he spoke. It was more grating than the first time round. Just seemed incredibly forced.

I also thought that Batman was hugely marginalised in the film. At no point did he ever come under any real threat and all his emotional choices were removed from the film.

For instance, we didn't even get to see the time when he chose to save Dent rather than Rachel. That really could have been a defining moment, but it was just skipped over.

This film was all about the Joker and in that sense it did a great job. For me Ledger really brought out the sick but funny side of him.

Unfortunately the performance of both him and the guy who played Dent (whose name escapes me as I write this) overshadowed Batman to such a level that frankly I kind of wanted them to win, which tells me something was wrong with the balance of the film. I was also very disappointed that they killed off Dent at this juncture. He's one of the most interesting of the Gotham villains and there was a lot more that could have been brought from his character in the future.

Good effort though. Probably as close as anyone will ever come to doing a "proper" Batman film.

I liked it, enjoyed it and had a good time.
I think it is overrated somewhat, actually probably massivly overrated, but it is good to see a blockbuster that delivers in terms of action and effects.

To me, the thing that most stands out the most are the amazing shots of the cities, whether it be Japan or China or Chicago, these shots made me feel like I was actually there.  If this was down to the cinematographry then that is an amazing axchiwvmeent - amazing.

I've had a little to drink since seeing it, but I doubt seeing this on DVD will measure up to the experience of seeing it at the big screen. It probably was the best experience in terms of feeling like you were actually there and the sound was fantastic.  It took me out of reality and made me believe this was happening and that was a great feeling.

There was a load of rubbish in the press and online about how violent this movie was which, actually made me go and see it, and I was sat at the back and in front of me was a little girl accompanied by I asume her grandma.  I only took this in note because I was lead to expect some kind of violence - and wanted to see the reaction. I tired of this little game but I was curious as to how kids would respond to such a violent movie.

Well this was not as much a violent movie as some of the media have been harping on about, as usual they have exaggerated it out of proportion.  Which was great for the kid and granny, and a relief for myself in a way. Yet also dissapointing because I was almost craving the Joker to let the blood spill.
I read some reviews and The Joker is apparently the most amazing villain ever.
The Joker is a good villain, Ledger played the part well , but if we are talking about oscars than surely the guy who plays Jason or Michael Myers deserves a lifetime award. * Bad joke. Really bad drunken joke.

By the way, a few teens left early but the crowd was good, was a good feeling in the cinema, people laughed and enjoyed the film as a whole  I think.

But it is definitly not oscar worthy. * Although what actually is these days? I cant see much competition so perhaps it should win.

Why didnt they just blame the killings on the Joker at the end instead of Batman? What happend to when the Joker when he was looking for Dent at that party and when Batman managed to catch up with Rachael and save her?

Batman felt more like James Bond in this one, and the sonar thing at the end was pretty ridiculous. I liked how he roughed up the Joker in the cell but it felt very weak in how The Joker was seemingly able to manipulate Batman and Harvey Dent with a few cheesey lines.

Which leads to Two Face - I think his character was in all, boring and not captivating at all. I never liked him from the start, I dont know why. I just ddint like him. The Two-face transistion was clever but why did he go nuts? Because of reveenge and a small speech from the Joker which wasnt really all that great? And 5 vitims? I counted 3.

The fight scenes looked repetive, as if it was the same fight scene from the start. The whole beating up the bad guys at the ending could have been a re cut of the first fight from the the start of the movie - there was nothing new here. And for realism - well , crashing on top of a speeding car kills any realism they were trying to aim at.  * It was cool though! Im just trying to be as critical as possible because there are so few things to pick out.
This film does have a couple of problems with its summary, but the ending was great. I loved it, I like the whole Batman not doing doing it for the glory but for what he in his mind is right.
I also felt Bruce Wayne's grieving for Rachael lasted all but one scene.

The Joker was the star, great job by Ledger.  

A good film, and I'll look forward to watching it again.  

7/ 10

Quoted from Scoob I read some reviews and The Joker is apparently the most amazing villain ever. No. No way. The Joker is a good villain, Ledger played the part well , but if we are talking about oscars than surely the guy who plays Jason or Michael Myers deserves a lifetime award.

...

I just have no words. I don't think there are any words in the English language for this situation. So I'm gonna make up my own.

GABLASH!

gablash - n. the sound you make when you lose all hope in the future of mankind.

Unless you're joking. But judging from your profile picture, you're probably not.

Ledger shouldn't get an Oscar, but "the guy" who plays Jason or Michael should?

What about the son of the guy who played Huggy Bear in TV's Starsky and Hutch?  

Quoted from Takeshi Ledger shouldn't get an Oscar, but "the guy" who plays Jason or Michael should? What about the son of the guy who played Huggy Bear in TV's Starsky and Hutch?

haha Simpsons reference!

I'm campaigning for the guy who played Steve Urkel to get his honorary Oscar soon!

Quoted from Death Monkey ... I just have no words. I don't think there are any words in the English language for this situation. So I'm gonna make up my own. GABLASH! gablash - n. the sound you make when you lose all hope in the future of mankind. Unless you're joking. But judging from your profile picture, you're probably not.

Right said Death Monkey,

Jason or even that stupid Michael Myers can't compare with the Joker as character and let's not say about who performs them. Did Jason ever open his mouth, he's a stupid guy who goes killing with no particular reason, like Michael Myers as well.

Maybe this is your taste on movies, but look at the reality surrounding you!

Huh?

Quoted from Death Monkey ... I just have no words. I don't think there are any words in the English language for this situation. So I'm gonna make up my own. GABLASH! gablash - n. the sound you make when you lose all hope in the future of mankind. Unless you're joking. But judging from your profile picture, you're probably not.

I was joking and pretty hammered when I wrote the whole thing so please dont take it too serious!

The Joker is a great villain but I dont think he is that much better than a whole load of other characters from other films. Having said that, I'm not knocking Ledger's portrayal as the Joker at all. I thought he was fantastic and stole the show.

The film as a whole, I really enjoyed it.

One complaint I have about the film is that it went way TOO long! Two hours to two hours and 10 minutes is a perfect running time! It's hard to set that long and not lose interest, no matter how good the story is.

The other thing I absolutely hate is the 2 enemies thing! I think having two enemies ina superhero flick ruins a lot of the flavor. It's weird how things worked better in the Animated Series that don't translate well on film. I also feel that Mask Of The Phantasm was better than all of the Batman films! But I could just be weird.

If I'd have written it, I would have shown how Harvy Dent was scarred and delved some into his mental deteriation, but that would have been as far as I'd taken it. He's one of Batmans most prolific enemies. I knew they'd kill him off and I haven't been following the comic lately, but is Harvy "Two Face" Dent dead in the comics now? See, I'm a bit of a purest. I was disappointed when the writers of Spider-Man gave him the natural ability to shoot webs instead of use his genius to devise the web shooters. Again, I might be weird that way.

The Joker was written the way the character originally was in the comics, a complete homicidal maniac! Sure he looks the part of the clown, but his attitude and willingness to take life makes him Batmans most deadliest foe. Sure he has a funny one liner or two, but the essence of the Joker is crazy-evil, not funny-crazy. They got it right this time!

Bales voice as the Batman was like he was struggling to deepen it and sound gravely, menacing. It wasn't natural at all. That bugged me. The action scenes however were filmed much better in this one. In Batman Begins, most of the fight scenes took place in the dark and you really couldn't  see the choreography. This one you could.

On my scale from 1 to 10, I gave Batman begins a 7. On that same scale for The Dark Knight, I also give it a 7. Maybe the 3rd installment will be closer to the tone of the comic. They're getting better, but they're not quite there.

It was enjoyable at least and I didn't go away feeling like I just threw $8.00 away!

Jerry

I haven't seen this yet, but I just heard a radio reviewer can it. He said that what happened in the first 30-40 minutes of the film had no relevance to what happened in     the second half of it. Then he said it was too long and that the climax had so much going on, and was so poorly laid out, that it was hard to workout what was going on. He criticized the soundtrack saying that it was too loud and that it often drowned out the dialogue. As for the Joker, which he conceded was the best thing about the movie, he said Heath was great, but it was a dream role and there’re another 5 or 6 actors who would've been great in it too. He also thought that the Joker was implausible, because he was a lunatic and a lunatic wouldn't have the mental faculties to outsmart a cities criminal population. He went on to say that the Joker contradicted himself because at one point he said that he didn't care about anything, but he seemed to care enough about money to try and steal it.

Quoted from Takeshi I haven't seen this yet, but I just heard a radio reviewer can it. He said that what happened in the first 30-40 minutes of the film had no relevance to what happened in     the second half of it. Then he said it was too long and that the climax had so much going on, and was so poorly laid out, that it was hard to workout what was going on. He criticized the soundtrack saying that it was too loud and that it often drowned out the dialogue. As for the Joker, which he conceded was the best thing about the movie, he said Heath was great, but it was a dream role and there’re another 5 or 6 actors who would've been great in it too. He also thought that the Joker was implausible, because he was a lunatic and a lunatic wouldn't have the mental faculties to outsmart a cities criminal population. He went on to say that the Joker contradicted himself because at one point he said that he didn't care about anything, but he seemed to care enough about money to try and steal it.

I think I know the reviewer in question.



Other than that he must've napped through the scene where The Joker BURNS ALL THE MONEY HE HAS STOLEN.

Yeah, maybe. But I reckon the stuff about Heath Ledger sounds true enough.

Ah, the irony. I flame someone with a Simpsons reference and then get flamed by one myself. Stupid poetic justice.  

There would always be somebody better for the role than the one playing it. People have opinions.

The smart lunatic part, I must admit that I started thinking about it when watching the film. He only seems crazy because of his actions. That's it. He gots enough balls to do what the other guy can't do. Other than it, it seems, if I may be so bold to say, the joker is pretty sane. He got far in accomplishing certain things than the crime bosses in Gotham.    

Gabe