All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
The Dark Knight has got to be not only the best film I have seen this year, but in years, it is a masterpiece pure and true, it is a movie without a single flaw, without a dull moment and even Eric Roberts gives a strong performance.
This is more of a crime film than a superhero film, it didn't even feel like a superhero movie, it's gritty and realistic, tough and violent.
The Joker wants to create chaos, turn the city upside down, turn people against each other, show that everyone is capable of evil. He doesn't do it for the money, he does it for fun, he enjoys Killing people, especially with a knife "it savours the moment" he says.
Everyone gives a great performance. Christian Bale is strong as Bruce Wayne and Batman. Gary Oldman this time has a huge role, almost as much as Bale which was nice to see. Arron Eckhart does a great job as both Harvey Dent and Two-Face, his Two-Face is nothing like the Tommy lee Jones one, he is a true monster, very frightening to look at. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman both give a lot of weight in their small rolls, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a step of from Katie Holmes, Eric Roberts gives a much toned down performance as Salvatore Maroni, the new crime boss of Gotham City, and then there is Heath Ledger as the Joker. What can be said that already hasn't been said. Nothing really, it is truly brilliant in every way, this is the most evil character I have seen in the movies, even more than Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, or Norman Bates, this is evil personified, when he delivers the line "look at me", it is terrifying. I can see why he will win an Oscar.
This is an instant classic and will be remembered not just for Heath Ledger, but because it is a terrific crime film, another great Hollywood film.
This movie was perfect. Everything about it was awesome and everything wrong with the last one was fixed. Gyllenhall was waaay better than Holmes. Like Jordan said, Oldman had a bigger role, as deserved. Eckhart was surprisingly solid, maybe even better than in Thank You For Smoking and his transformation into Two-Face actually feels plausible and isn't goofy like in Schumacher's garbage.
Ledger, of course, steals the show. Somehow he managed to do the impossible and outshine Bale, which is damn near impossible considering Bale destroys all the film's veteran actors (Caine, Freeman, Oldman, etc.). He's so good, he even outdoes actors who weren't even in the movie. Sorry, Jack. You've had plenty of memorable moments onscreen. I think you can let the new guy have this one. I mean, Ledger does have a pretty sweet disappearing pencil trick.
Somehow he managed to do the impossible and outshine Bale, which is damn near impossible considering Bale destroys all the film's veteran actors (Caine, Freeman, Oldman, etc.).
I'm sorry, but to me Christian Bale is the worst part of this movie. He did okay in the first, but in this one he took me out of the movie so often. Maybe it was the outstanding performance of everyone else (especially Ledger, but followed swiftly by eckhart), but I just couldn't stand him. I also am just not generally a christian Bale fan though, so it could just be me.
movie didnt do much for me, was just good... i wasnt entertained as much as to say 'WANTED" or hancock, which both had not so solid plots but were entertaining
Heath was great, but the joker was alil too much serious at time and not enuff jokes to really label him joker
I saw this film at an IMAX theatre and even with the big screen gimmick, I fought to keep myself interested. Despite some of the fantastic performances (Ledger was good but I thought Oldman stole the show – Bale’s different voices irritated me), it was too long and the stories were not all that gripping.
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).
The last problem I had with the film was how dark the action scenes were, it was too hard to follow anything. The introduction of the sonar didn’t help – it just seemed to make the action even more confusing.
After rereading the above, it probably sounds like I hated the film. I didn’t. I just think it missed the mark for being as great as it could have been.
I mean, Ledger does have a pretty sweet disappearing pencil trick.
HAHA I loved that scene. there was this family who got up and left right after that...lol, what kid of idiot brings their kids to a movie like this.
Also this just reached number 1 on imdb, which really means nothing, but to see it piss people off that it did makes me feel good.
what I'm really happy about is that it beat spider man 3 for opening day record, would love to see it smash titanic but I'm afraid it won't get the little old lady audience to do it.
You mean the difference between Bruce Wayne and Batman's voice? Yeah, that was weird. It didn't sound like Bale's natural voice though. I think they might've pitchshifted his voice or something to make Batman sound tougher.
Just saw this today... WOW. Better than expected. Way better than expected. Action, story build up, the villans, very good. I was thinking it would be just overhyped... no way. 9.8/10 and if you're wondering where those extra .2 went, Bale's voice when he made it deeper for batman definately got on my nerves. Ledger's preformance was WAY better than I was expecting, I mean I heard he was going to be great in this, but this was just way better than I was hoping. and Two-Face... WAAAAY better in this than Tommie Lee's Two-Face!
Yeah, Bale's "Batman Voice" was horrible, in my opinion. He goes from a normal voice as Bruce, to almost sounding like Darkman when he's screaming and yelling at people.
I don't see a problem with the voice. That is how I remember him sounding in the first.
Harvey's burnt face looks like The Mummy... More ash than flesh and bone and why was his suit still burnt? Do they not treat burn victims well in Gotham? I am pretty sure they would cut off the suit and replace it with a hospital gown and throw away the burnt suit.
The movie was a Batfan's wet dream and another solid addition to the series.
The performance of The Joker was good but not academy award winning. A lot of the positive views in the media and online are by the same people who if he was alive would be slamming him for little things.
From an unbiased (Non Heath Ledger kiss ass) point of view, I thought he did a good job.
The real positive is the strong story and characters and the continuing saga.
Heath Ledger makes this movie a must see event. This is the best movie villain since Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber in Die Hard. I did have several nit picks about the movie as a whole.
Gary Oldman's Lt. Gordon just isn't very interesting to follow. I don't feel anything for him or his journey. He's just a throw away supporting character we don't give a crap about.
I also don't like how the bigger names like Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are just thrown in there with nothing much to do. They seemed to exist as filler, when nothing else of importance is happening on screen. I just didn't care.
Great action sequences and really inventive, sadistic crimes committed by The Joker. The scenes with the ferries crossing the river, rigged with explosives was fantastic. Whenever Joker was on screen this is a great film. When he wasn't, it just didn't do anything for me.
What is really irritating to me is how, whenever a new summer action movie comes out, everyone calls it "The Greatest Movie Ever!". Dark Knight is now rated #1 on Imdb.com's top #250 films, based on votes. Come on, people. Was it really that good?
What is really irritating to me is how, whenever a new summer action movie comes out, everyone calls it "The Greatest Movie Ever!". Dark Knight is now rated #1 on Imdb.com's top #250 films, based on votes. Come on, people. Was it really that good?
I haven't even seen it yet, but I'm going to go on record as saying "no".
I have no doubt that I'll enjoy it, but top 250? I highly doubt it, and I attribute the current, almost sad, state of affairs to another day at the 'ol IMDb.
It's 250 material. Believe me. I just don't like it at #1 because it's not better than The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption. Hopefully TDK being at #1 is temperary and it'll drop to the 40's or 30's.
I'm gonna need you to go ahead and explain this to me. Why is this 250 material? Seriously, I really want to know, since it obviously has enough going for it to make you paint your face like The Joker.
This is something that's kind of sitting on my mind at the moment. Obviously it's not better than the two movies you mentioned, but I highly doubt it's even worthy of a 30-40 spot.
Actually, I don't even know why I'm arguing this point cause fucking WALL-E is ranked 23.
I'm gonna need you to go ahead and explain this to me. Why is this 250 material? Seriously, I really want to know, since it obviously has enough going for it to make you paint your face like The Joker.
This is something that's kind of sitting on my mind at the moment. Obviously it's not better than the two movies you mentioned, but I highly doubt it's even worthy of a 30-40 spot.
Actually, I don't even know why I'm arguing this point cause fucking WALL-E is ranked 23.
The list is a joke.
I didn't paint my face like the joker just for a picture. I'm not THAT weird. It was for one of our youtube videos when I spoofed it. Well, it's top 250 material because the experience at the theater was so great. This isn't like any other summer blockbuster. It has something about it that is very hard to explain. If you go see it in the theaters, you'd know what I am trying to tell you. The acting is pretty good, minus Bale's Batman preformance kind or wasn't great. I don't know how to explain why it's top 250 material. But you are right, the list is a huge joke. And like someone else said, it's not a list of the top 250 greatest movies, it's a list of the top 250 most popular movies by a vote. I don't pay attention to the list like it's God, but it's worth being on that list. And it is definately in my top 100 favorite movies at the moment.
I saw this at the Danish premiere last night and went in expecting something absolutely stunning, yet I was ready for a sore disappointment (all hype considered).
Amazingly this film doesn't disappoint. It really IS amazing. Some people complain the film was too long. I say it was too short. It could've used 10-15 more minutes to bolster the two-face plot and more importantly to give the film some down time.
That's really my only real gripe with the film. It never slows down, not even when it should. First after Gordon is "killed", but especially after Rachel dies, the movie really need to take it easy and show some grief. Bruce has one scene where he's kinda sad, but I never got the impression his best friend/love of his life was just taken from him. I think only 5-6 minutes later he's up and about joking about lamborghinis and shit. That sort of lessened the emotional impact for me, and I'm hoping for a 3 hour director's cut with more characterization.
Other than that, this movie really works on so many levels. While it doesn't transcend its comic book origins it does push the boundaries fo what is possible to do with a comic.
Oh and Heath Ledger is one of the 3 best villains of all time. His performance does deserve an Oscar and is comparable to last year's Daniel Plainview or Anton Chigurgh.
Minor annoyances are the sub-par acting smong some of the lesser parts such as various gangsters, but overall this is a solid 9/10 for me. Not quite the masterpiece, but a truly thrilling and cathartic experience that absolutely deserves to be in the top 250. Maybe even the top 50.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
What the hell was with the CREAKY dialogue in the opening scene ?
Thug A : gee this Joker we work for sure is creepy! Thug B : Yeah, i hear he wears makeup to scare people...
OMG...I almost choked on my popcorn. If someone here started out a Batman fan script with that dialogue...I can imagine how it'd be ripped to shreds.
I will say it's better than Batman Begins, which was maybe my least favorite superhero movie ever. It's a good movie but not a great one. Harvey Dent's fall from grace worked very well, mainly due to the fabulous Eckhart. But - Joker refers to himself as an "agent of chaos" with no plans, yet...everything he does would require tremendous planning.
Bale's funny Batmask-Is-Too-Tight voice is still awful. But overall I do admire the effort to make a crime movie that just happened to have Batman as a character. Ledger was good, MUCH better than Nicholson. The movie was solid but a victim of hype. It's flagged as The Second Coming, but falls short of the mark for me. On a 1-10 scale, give it a 7.
13 feature scripts, 2 short subjects. One sale, 4 options. Nothing filmed. Damn.
Currently rewriting another writer's SciFi script for an indie producer in L.A.
What the hell was with the CREAKY dialogue in the opening scene ?
Thug A : gee this Joker we work for sure is creepy! Thug B : Yeah, i hear he wears makeup to scare people...
OMG...I almost choked on my popcorn. If someone here started out a Batman fan script with that dialogue...I can imagine how it'd be ripped to shreds.
I will say it's better than Batman Begins, which was maybe my least favorite superhero movie ever. It's a good movie but not a great one. Harvey Dent's fall from grace worked very well, mainly due to the fabulous Eckhart. But - Joker refers to himself as an "agent of chaos" with no plans, yet...everything he does would require tremendous planning.
Bale's funny Batmask-Is-Too-Tight voice is still awful. But overall I do admire the effort to make a crime movie that just happened to have Batman as a character. Ledger was good, MUCH better than Nicholson. The movie was solid but a victim of hype. It's flagged as The Second Coming, but falls short of the mark for me. On a 1-10 scale, give it a 7.
While disagree vastly withn your final assessment of the film, I actually do concede certain points.
Yes, the dialogue in the beginning was incredibly on the nose. IN fact there were several places where I thought they could've trusted the audience a bit more to get the gist of what's going on without having to turn to a "holy exposition, Batman!" line.
As for the Joker having plans. I took his agent of chaos as meaning basically he has no agenda, he's not furthering any cause, not that he just woke up this morning and thought "I'm gonna put on make-up and rob a bank today."
The best example of his planning is when he breaks out of jail. An intricate plan. But all his plans never lead anywhere. He robs the bank to...well no reason really. As Alfred says "Just to watch the world burn." I thought one of the strokes of genius in the film was his repeated explanation for how he came to be this twisted maniac. The first time I though "oh great, another villain forged by childhood trauma" but then when he changes the story the next time it dawns on the audience that there is no why. There is no causation, no motivation, no end to justify the means. For the joker the means justify the means.
To me that makes him infinitely more fascinating than any comic book villain in any other movie.
The film is definitely not without its flaws, it's not perfect in anyway, but I think maybe your disposition towards the franchise in general (seeing BB as the worst superhero movie, which, all things considered, is a rather controversial statement) might make this an almost impossible liking for you.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Well, not actually impossible for me to like it, my post reads. a bit harsh, but yeah for two years I had zero interest in seeing TDK, but the wild hype on this sold me, and MOST of the things I felt were wrong with BB weren't present here. I went in really wanting to like it, and Nolan's comments about being inspired by Mann's HEAT were what finally made me go.
It's not like, after the first Shrek I refuse to submit to any more of that torture lol.
It was encouraging that despite the comments and whisperings about this capturing the spirit of Frank Miller's Batman, in fact I found it quite the opposite, to be thoughtful and layered for the most part. 7 of 10 might be a bit low, let's say 8 of 10 in all honesty. The Batman voice thing won't go away after all. The opening and some of Joker's end speech were a bit much and really the only false notes. Two Face was great, I liked the bait and switch with Dent and Rachel ( wasn't that her name?) , for me that worked well. Batman's brutality came off nicely.
13 feature scripts, 2 short subjects. One sale, 4 options. Nothing filmed. Damn.
Currently rewriting another writer's SciFi script for an indie producer in L.A.
If it wasn't for the fact that this was obviously a mainstream film I would've wanted the film to go much darker in places. I would like to have seen the joker be right about human nature. I thought the two boats were wired so that if any of them pushed the button they would blow themselves up. I would also maybe have liked to see Harvey Dent actually killing Gordon's son haha. That would make Gordon's character really interesting for the next film.
I'm still waiting for the extended NC17 cut.
Another really cool thing to do for nr. 3, although purists will hate it, is actually make Batman semi-villainous. At the end of this one he sees himself become the villain as Dent predicted (who died a hero) so obviously he will be a hated figure in the next film, he will be hunted. What if he finally stops caring about the people of Gotham and starts to use his alter-ego for his own gains, personal vendettas and such, but not for Gotham anymore which he has come to despise. What if the villain in the next film actually starts out as someone who sees Batman as the villain?
That could be an incredibly dark and alienating film. I love it.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I got to see the film today. I was blown away. Heath's performance was outstanding. It got me interested in reading the magazines Heath used as a source for the character. He's really a tough opponent. The opening sequence at the bank charactizes the joker. Too bad he won't reprise the role for the sequel. It would be good to see the joker come back in the 3.
The story was really good. I liked the interesting developments between Two Face, Gordon, Fox. I'm surprised that the joker and two-face talked to each other. Joker as a mentor, lol.
But I do agree with Death Monkey that it should have went a bit slower. It was too much information to cram into a single film. Other than that, I enjoyed it.
If their is a sequel, I can't wait to see it. Hopefully, they bring Two Face back. I'm curious with which villain though. Some say, the Riddler. I'm interested in how they can turn him dark.
Gabe
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
Too bad he won't reprise the role for the sequel. It would be good to see the joker come back in the 3.
I was thinking about that, and I really hope they include a joker in the third, and that people will let them recast it. Ledger did an amazing job, but it's not like he's the only one that would be able to do it. I think that most people would go crazy at the idea of recasting the joker, but, I mean, come on. Why so serious?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's too great a character to simply throw away due to a tragedy....
If their is a sequel, I can't wait to see it. Hopefully, they bring Two Face back. I'm curious with which villain though. Some say, the Riddler. I'm interested in how they can turn him dark.
I'd be interested to know if there's any truth to that... But the riddler could TOTALLY be dark. They'd just have to play up his horrible OCD and reference his troubled past. The Riddler, under Nolan's direction, I think could make another fantastic villain.
Oh well... so many reviews and everyone is right somehow
here's what i think:
This is the best superhero movie to this date, and of course the best Batman movie. I loved the way Heath Ledger portrayed Joker, telling the stories of how he got the scars.
The voice of Bale when his dressed with the Batsuit is strange, and even harder than it was in Batman Begins.
The story was great. We have a plot twist in the middle of the movie, and then we see what drives Harvey Dent to seek revenge, this is so new to the Batman world. I never thought the movie would follow so much the line story of Gordon, but that was fine with me.
This was a dark, very dark movie so different from every other Batman movie.
As for the #1 on imdb i don't know what to say, maybe it deserves it, maybe it doesn't everybody got an opinion about that, my opinion is that it could stay on the best 10.
I loved the realistic way the film was portrayed, and i think Chris Nolan would have done every shot as real as he could, without doing them in CG. I guess he would have made Dent's face in prosthetic but after seeing Tommy Lee Jones as 2 face he might have went for the CG.
I like the way the movie ends, leaving for more. I mean why do the superheros have always to have a happy ending attached. TDK didn't.
It's funny how everyone mentions how dark the film was, but actually I thought it was much lighter than I expected, and not just in terms of tone when the joker was on screen, but a great many scenes, action scenes, took place in broad daylight. The initial heist, but also the hospital getting blown up and the assassination attempt on the mayor were day scenes.
Did BB have any major action scenes in daylight?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I think it's not the fact that the scenes are in daylight more than its darker tone as a story, and you know what i mean. One major character gets killed, and batman's world is going down even as Bruce Wayne.
Plus the ending of the movie shows how dark it is, the destroying of the bat-signal.
wow! Just back from seeing this and i'm just amazed at how good this movie actually is!! This film represents my greatest cinema experience to date.
I felt like there was too much hype surrounding this movie, and that because of that I would be left with a sense of dissapointment, but this was not the case. I think this movie suparses the hype. It's just excellent from start to finish!
Heath Ledger definitley steals the show as the Joker. The Joker is the best movie villian ever in my opinion after witnessing his chaotic antics. His pencil trick still has me cringing just thinking about it!
I don't know if I'm the greatest critic in the world when it comes to movies. I always get all wooshy inside with the "human condition" scenes (is that what you call them?) and the whole critical bent goes out to sea.
It's different with books. They seem to be less forgiving. I guess because they don't move and flash about on screen like movies do. In movies it's easy to "forgive and forget". Like life.
On paper, I work a lot with detail. I notice everything. Sometimes, this seriously hinders my "larger picture" and I need to shelve things because I lose the grasp on "the big picture" and need a rest just to get a bird's eye view again.
So I was trying to conjure up some kind of crit on "The Dark Night". To be honest-- perfectly honest, I did want to see the movie more, simply because Heath Ledger wasn't around anymore. I felt like I wanted to grasp a little bit of his essence. (Not Joker essence-- but his journey to explore the dark side.) Forget about Batman, I was more interested in Heath.
Truthfully, I was never a comic reader, unless you want to count "Scamp", "Nancy" and "Family Circle".
What I felt this movie lacked, was character development and plot. Wow! Is there anything else left? This sounds really bad I know, but it doesn't mean I think the movie was bad. I just think that it could have been a lot better.
What I'm thinking now is that maybe this was done on purpose. Maybe they wanted the other characters to be a little more flat in order to play up the Joker. What do you all think about this possibility? I think that maybe it's reasonable. They're not stupid. They know what they're doing. It's likely it was intentional.
Personally, I like it when a movie manages to come from all angles. To showcase more than one character and to do it well. Even if it's a short bit of glory for a smaller role, I still think it's meaningful.
I want to mention Michael Prevette's comment about the lame line in the beginning. This is what makes Michael such a great up and coming writer. He hones in on this kind of thing really quickly. Michael has a great "bird's eye view" when it comes to movies and I've seen him take a book and script it really well.
Yes Michael, it was lame, but I never would have caught it at the movies. Had I wrote it, I would have said... EW!!!! Rewrite! It's easy to write "EWS". But it's the force of the "End of Writer's Salubriousness " that calls us out of that dreadful state where we write: "He's so bad he..." needs a character foil who SAVES A CAT. (Thinking of Death Monkey's comments slashing Blake Snyder.)
Are we going to write "paint by numbers?"
Blake Snyder is correct about the psychology, but if we're serious, we have to move beyond "the kid was treated badly so he grows up to be a criminal" mentality and he "saves a cat" so he's good mentality.
Yes-yes, I know, it happens all the time, but equally so, the opposite is true.
Just so you know, regarding "Save The Cat," I LOVE CATS-- I LOVE ALL ANIMALS, BUT...
The hard part about writing is getting to the nitty-gritty that truly causes our characters to tick the way they do.
I think "The Dark Night" made a point of showing The Joker's reasoning. Additionally, it spent time on "the effects" which of course, they wanted to play up.
How to mark it? I'll give Heath a ten. Writers I'll give a six together with the side actors and the director/producer.
I just felt like there were a lot of boring "talk scenes" that didn't capture me. It was always: "When is The Joker going to appear?"
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).
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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!
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.
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
If you can't beat 'em, then get yourself a bigger stick! John Mavity
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 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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
Ah, the irony. I flame someone with a Simpsons reference and then get flamed by one myself. Stupid poetic justice.
Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays, please eliminate two.
P.S. I'm not a crackpot.
But for the record I honestly don't think the reviewer you're talking about has seen the entire film. It sounds like he's reviewing based off someone else's summary.
First off, the Joker isn't mentally incapacitated. He understands the consequences of his actions. In fact in his very first scene he clearly states "I'm not crazy. I'm not." And his actions backs this up. He's not insane, he's just a man without any scruples, without any rules and with a twisted sense of humor. But a lunatic, as in being psychotic? Nope.
And the thing about Heath Ledger for me is this: When they first cast him I thought "No! Bring in Sam Rockwell, Paul Bettany, hell even Cillian Murphy before he became the scarecrow" but my position is now that they should never bring back the Joker in Nolan's franchise as played by someone else, because it is impossible to top or imtate what Ledger did. Just like no one else could've been Daniel Plainview the way Daniel Day Lewis was, no one can be the joker like Ledger. It is an astounding, awe-inspiring performance.
Other actors could've done really cool things with it, but no one could've done what he did. His mannerisms, gestures, his walk, his voice, his friggin intonation. He created an incredibly volumous character from something that, on the page, actually isn't that amazing. Every line is elevated to the power of 10.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I only posted what that radio dude said because it was so contrary to what I've heard everyone else say about it. I guess I just wanted to put it out there to see what y'all thought about his comments. I'll be off to see it myself next week and I'll add my two cents worth then.
The Joker was written the way the character originally was in the comics, a complete homicidal maniac!
I keep hearing people say this but I don't get it. I haven't read all the early stuff but I have read the Joker's first appearance. The basics are there, guy dressed like a clown, makes jokes, kills some people(but with poison injections, so it's pretty tame) but it's not at all the Joker that's in the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Joker would give the first appearance Joker nightmares.
And btw, everybody that didn't absolutely love every single second of this movie is lying or a communist.
If it wasn't for the fact that this was obviously a mainstream film I would've wanted the film to go much darker in places.
I agree. This is another example of a film trying to have mass appeal and also to a younger audience.
The same was true with the Harry Potter Movies. If you've read the books, you know how dark it becomes, but the movies don't reflect this. And really, I think they made the right call because these did start out (book-wise) as for children.
I have a great deal of trouble with my writing because I keep trying (actually I don't always try, it often just happens) but my work keeps swinging back from comedy to dark stuff and it can work, but only if the writer prepares the reader for it.
That's been a major problem in a novel series I'm working one. Balancing these two elements is really hard.
The writer, can't start out all happy-dappy and lead the reader or audience to believe they are going to get one kind of tale and then change it. And of course, this is all part of the package and genre and rated scale that are important in the movie business.
Yes, if we know we're going to see a horror and we start out with the "normal life" scenes, the audience has already signed the contract and are entirely willing to play along. But we can't sneak this kind of thing in something that is wrapped in a different kind of packaging.
What I would like to see is a movie with Batman and Joker, going out to dinner together to discuss a very bad situation that they both are linked to psychologically. I don't know what-- but something. And during dinner, they discuss their lives, their disgusts, and they both discover they have a few things in common.
Now this is the kind of movie I would find fascinating to watch.
What I would like to see is a movie with Batman and Joker, going out to dinner together to discuss a very bad situation that they both are linked to psychologically. I don't know what-- but something.
How bout they discuss Jack Napier's killing of Bruce Wayne's parents, as it happened in the first movie? That meets all the parameters you're seeking.
Interesting idea, but why bring Batman and The Joker into the equation? Doing something like that would probably get you stoned ( a different kind) in the fanboy community, not to mention that it would probably be incredibly boring.
You talked briefly on starting out a script "happy dappy" and then going darker. Why worry about it? That's what synopses and trailers are for. If your script opens with a big musical number and a bunch of flamboyant, happy people dancing around, but then suddenly dives into a much darker place where people are murdered by having vacuum cleaners stuffed into horrible places, then so be it. Once it gets into the realm of viewing audiences, it's not your problem. You've accomplished what you set out to do...sell a script that gets made into a movie. Congratulations, and beware that suction.
You talked briefly on starting out a script "happy dappy" and then going darker. Why worry about it? That's what synopses and trailers are for. If your script opens with a big musical number and a bunch of flamboyant, happy people dancing around, but then suddenly dives into a much darker place where people are murdered by having vacuum cleaners stuffed into horrible places, then so be it. Once it gets into the realm of viewing audiences, it's not your problem. You've accomplished what you set out to do...sell a script that gets made into a movie. Congratulations, and beware that suction.
I know what you are saying, but I'm having problems because in the script I wrote: I went Disney, and in the novel, I went Anne Rice, and in between both, I went (You know in Hellboy where the fish-guy and Hell Boy are having a beer and singing...) I went like that.
And I really need to develop a consistency within a piece. Even if it bounces-- still, I need to figure out how to weave in the bounces. And I need to determine whether I'm writing for wide audience appeal or an adult audience. I haven't figured that out yet and I'm very confused. I'm a little girl and then I'm a seductress and then I'm a nurturing woman with the desire to give everything to her man... and all these "thought forms" jumble inside to produce very erratic writing.
I mentioned this in another post.
We can get into "The Zone" in our writing, but crafting it into a serious piece of work is another story. Inspiration in "The Zone" is easy, but it's just a vapor and it's nothing like the craft that has been worked over the course of ten or twenty years.
If I can get my current "baby" off the ground in a couple of years time, I'll be happy.
"I keep hearing people say this but I don't get it. I haven't read all the early stuff but I have read the Joker's first appearance. The basics are there, guy dressed like a clown, makes jokes, kills some people(but with poison injections, so it's pretty tame) but it's not at all the Joker that's in the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Joker would give the first appearance Joker nightmares. "
Batman as a whole is interesting because people's perception of him and his universe are kind of at odds with the reality.
The modern Batman comics are far darker in tone than the original comics. Many of the staunchest Batman fans do not even recognise the original comics as being "true" Batman stories. I'm sure that the original and rapidly aging fans probably think the same of the later comics.
Here's the rub: There's only really been two great Batman stories
1. The Killing joke, which was an origin story of the Joker and gives Joker the characteristics that we see in the latest film.
2. The Dark Knight . This is perhaps the best of the Batman stories but it presents serious problems for Producers in that it is the end of a franchise and not the beginning. Batman is in his 50's and comes back for one last time before disappearing into the ether.
There was talk at one point of Eastwood doing it, but you can't really make it from a Production point of view because it ends the franchise.
These two Graphic Novels are really the inspiration behind Nolan's latest film.
The thing with Superheroes is that they are re-invented all the time, under different authorship and do not really follow a tight chronology. So, the "real" versions of the characters are just those that people enjoy at that particular time.
Other companies (e.g LucasArts) are more protective over their IP,s and insist on consistent story lines that do not contradict each other, but Marvel and DC seem to allow people to do what they wish with their characters (to a degree). Hence you can have hugely important charcaters being killed off before they've even done a single one of the things that in the comic book Universe, they are famous for (E.g Two-Face in the latest film).
"What I would like to see is a movie with Batman and Joker, going out to dinner together to discuss a very bad situation that they both are linked to psychologically. I don't know what-- but something. And during dinner, they discuss their lives, their disgusts, and they both discover they have a few things in common.
Now this is the kind of movie I would find fascinating to watch."
There is a school of thought that Batman is gay and that he and the Joker are actually in love. Frank Miller himself, who revived Batman for the modern era, claimed that Batman was a "homophobic nightmare". It's suggested that Batmans homoerotic desires are what fuels his crime fighting and conversely what fuels the Joker's psychotic rage.
The thing is, both of them are aware of what they have in common and that's why their destinies are entwined (something I thought the movie got across quite well, at least from the Joker's side). You can read into the fact that Batman will never kill the Joker despite the mayhem he causes and the lives he takes and the fact that the Joker clearly likes the Batman what you will.
Who else can understand Batman's psychotic side orther than the Joker and who else in the world is an equal for the Joker's twisted brilliance? They're soul mates.
The point being, if they were to ever sit and talk over dinner, they'd end up in bed together. : )
I'd imagine they'd have some pretty wild sex as well...
What I would like to see is a movie with Batman and Joker, going out to dinner together to discuss a very bad situation that they both are linked to psychologically. I don't know what-- but something. And during dinner, they discuss their lives, their disgusts, and they both discover they have a few things in common.
This, essentially is the beginning and the end of The Killing Joke. Batman tries having a heart-to-heart with the Joker.
"What I would like to see is a movie with Batman and Joker, going out to dinner together to discuss a very bad situation that they both are linked to psychologically. I don't know what-- but something. And during dinner, they discuss their lives, their disgusts, and they both discover they have a few things in common.
Now this is the kind of movie I would find fascinating to watch."
There is a school of thought that Batman is gay and that he and the Joker are actually in love. Frank Miller himself, who revived Batman for the modern era, claimed that Batman was a "homophobic nightmare". It's suggested that Batmans homoerotic desires are what fuels his crime fighting and conversely what fuels the Joker's psychotic rage.
The thing is, both of them are aware of what they have in common and that's why their destinies are entwined (something I thought the movie got across quite well, at least from the Joker's side). You can read into the fact that Batman will never kill the Joker despite the mayhem he causes and the lives he takes and the fact that the Joker clearly likes the Batman what you will.
Who else can understand Batman's psychotic side orther than the Joker and who else in the world is an equal for the Joker's twisted brilliance? They're soul mates.
The point being, if they were to ever sit and talk over dinner, they'd end up in bed together. : )
I'd imagine they'd have some pretty wild sex as well...
I can't argue this at all because I don't know what people are perceiving now or in the past.
I had never considered any sexual tendencies here at all-- but I don't think we should blame The Joker or Batman if sexuality is the culprit to all the madness. Maybe we should blame Freud.
Serioulsy though, these kinds of questions always seem to come up in stories. Like the revelation from the Potter world that Dumbledore sways a little towards the happy side. Well, no matter... I can't change my feelings for Dumbledore. I love him as much as Snape.
In Anne Rice's Lasher, we have the sophisticated, and muted, Ancient Evelyn who remembers her encounters with the lovely uninhibited, Stella. Here too, we travel into a sexual landscape without the typical topography.
It's really strange though to read about such a possibility within comic hero lore. I guess I've just been too sheltered.
I emailed the link to this thread to the radio reviewer I mentioned and this was his response.
CHRIS,
that was a reasonably apt summary of what I said, I think. The problem with reviewing something like that (well, a movie or anything) on the fly, rather than from a script or bullet-points, is that you risk focussing on certain aspects too much and others not enough or at all.
But I didn't want to leave it another week until I'd had time to script a review, since it had already been a little while since the movie's release, and it was still a hot topic NOW, so I'll have to wear it.
The concentration on "Would the Joker have acted like this?" is probably a little to one side of the issue for me, is what I guess I'm saying. I thought it was more of a 'movie-construction' issue.
That particular conundrum of the Joker ("He's a nutbar , but he still gets stuff done", to really dumb it down to nutshell-form) is part of the character, and has been (depending on treatment over the years - it was noticeably less 'hardcore' in the period from the 50s to the 60s, and really was never as viciously characterised in the early days as it was in the Englehart/Rogers revisionist run in "Detective Comics" in the 1970s, which led to the Alan Moore "Killing Joke" and Frank Miller "Dark Knight Returns" treatments of the '80s) since Bob Kane came up with him in the late 30s. That's all jake with me. It's a matter of treatment.
My question re the movie was about how THE MOVIE dealt with that, and I think that the anarchist/nihilist Joker they present, who is wilful and acts on whim, is difficult to reconcile with a guy organised enough to ramrod the entirety of organised crime in the city into becoming effective lackeys, or an irrelevance, and also completely bamboozle and terrorise the police force, and all in record time as well. An analogy seemed to be made to terrorism, but terrorists as we know them have defined (if sketchy to us) goals, and their acts are, in some way, presumably intended to help them advance towards those goals. If the Joker's goal is to transmit his nihilism to the populace of Gotham City - which is what the guts of the movie is really about, and the part that works best, i.e. the issue of the Joker's psyche - then what does he give a fig about organised crime, or convoluted heist attempts? He doesn't, is the simple answer. The movie tries to play it both ways. I'd suggest the idea of the Joker as an intricate political manipulator (if to demented ends) is not an uninteresting one, but it doesn't have much to do with the Joker that's in the bulk of the movie, and certainly the part that counts. It's a contradiction, and a weakening of focus, in this case. It's also not really anything that's to do with any portrayal of the character in the past. Good idea for a future movie or comics series, quite possibly - just not for this one.
I guess my point was that they didn't have the focus or the discipline to keep the action of the movie within the fairly bold parameters of the psychological profile they'd established for the Joker. In the normal run of heroic action/everything explodes movies, this wouldn't matter much and you'd just go along with it, and take any and all implausibilities as part of the territory. In this case, to me the loss of focus weakens the movie as a whole, since by the time the Joker is really established as a character, and his relationship with the Batman character registers, (not until about half-way through as I mentioned) you realise that that's really what the vital core of the movie is, and the rest is set decoration, give or take, and you wonder why there had to be so much of the latter, since it just dilutes the most effective elements of the film.
Just to clarify a couple of other things. The soundtrack wasn't "too loud" in my opinion. It was too busy, and poorly mixed, at least in the version I heard in that particular cinema. There was dialogue that was meant to be heard that was inaudible. There was a music score, with electronic elements similar to sound effects, then a loud FX track, and also dialogue, plus all the usual multi-track folderol. In portions of it, there was simply too much going on, and they also mixed the dialogue track too low in comparison with the rest of the cacophony.
This is a good analogy for the rest of the movie - far too much shoe-horned in, far too much going on, and a loss of focus on the stuff that really was key to the dramatic dynamic that not only made the movie work, but was really the whole movie. (Or should have been.)
The guy on the posting board thing you sent me the link for who commented that they shouldn't have introduced, developed and then killed off the other supervillain Two Face, within this movie was dead right. That was the next picture if they played it right.
It's this modern day approach (probably dating back to the Indiana Jones movies, at least, but set in stone more since then) of throwing everything at the fan, and then finding a little more everything and throwing that too, and then throwing the fan at the movie goer, heedless of anything resembling effective dramatic structure, that just doesn't cut it for me. A more ironclad and obvious example is the third Spider-Man picture. How many supervillains and soap-opera sub-plots do you need in the one superhero movie? There can't be any real momentum or dramatic build in a situation like that. There's no need to shovel 100 comics worth of plot into a film when 10 will cover it.
They put too much in "Dark Knight" - much of it irrelevant to the core that really got the viewer in and drove the movie - had too many climaxes, and it went on far too long.
Just a couple of other clarifications. I didn't want to seem churlish about Heath Ledger's performance or Heath Ledger. He did a great job. My point wasn't EXACTLY that five or six other guys could have done as good a job. It's a fine distinction, but what I was trying to say (and I think I did say this, although I haven't listened back to a recording yet) is that it was such a gift of a role as written that five or six well-chosen other actors, ones with a gift for the quirky, could have had a fair crack at it and done equally well. In other words, because of the nature of the role, as written, unless it was a case of total miscasting, whoever was chosen for the role had a fair crack at doing something memorable with it. I don't, and didn't, mean to take anything away from Heath Ledger, who recognised the golden opportunity and aced it.
Also, one of my objections which I didn't mention was to the Joker make-up. It looked too much like a kid playing with mummy's make-up and I didn't find it repellent or frightening at all. It just looked like a guy in a lousy make-up job, not someone who'd had their face carved up. (I liked Heath Ledger's gimmick of constantly pushing and probing with his tongue against the scars supposedly inside his mouth. That was creepy/interesting/irritating on a subliminal level, and it was good that they didn't mention it in dialogue and dilute it. But with the make-up and prosthetic technology available today, why leave it all up to the actor?) The original Bob Kane conception of the Joker came from a silent movie called "The Man Who Laughs". The main character of that, portrayed by Conrad Veidt, still has a somewhat shocking and disconcerting look to this day. It must have been possible to hark back to that example, and develop a face-piece/make-up for Ledger that resembled and expanded on Veidt's, without subjecting him to the torture that Veidt went through with wires distorting his mouth, etc. I thought the Ledger make-up was unimaginative and flat as a tack. It didn't even have "evil clown" scare value for me, and the Joker's visage is meant to go beyond that. Kane's version was a leering, horrible variant on the classic theatrical mask of the past. That's the kind of effect to go for.
Oddly enough, there's enough that works in it that I still thought it was a decent picture. By now you know which parts I thought worked. I have no doubt that in a few years' time all but the most subjective will have revised their opinions of this movie, and we won't be hearing about it as any sort of "great" picture. The reality is that "Iron Man" did what it did rather better, as a whole, than this did, mainly because they mostly stuck to what worked, both in their conception, and in terms of adapting a much less promising comic-book original. The great Dark Knight/Batman/Joker movie is still yet to be made. Simply adapting "Killing Joke" or "The Dark Knight Returns" as faithfully as possible (with the right director/actors/creative personnel/budget etc etc, of course) would achieve that.
What they're doing with this series is a somewhat freestyle and occasionally wayward variant on Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" mini-series, from which they've abstracted many many key elements, and then grubbed their way through other comics sources, thrown that in, plus some additional "Hollywood magic" and bonus explosions. Neither movie has been bad, but both could have significantly improved with more focus.
They just have to leave out all the salad in future and concentrate on the burger at hand.
Well, I finally saw The Dark Knight last night and I thought it was good. I'd heard some of the talk about it being pro-Bush, not just from Sheepwalker but from other sources too. So through out the movie I was trying to workout what was Bush about Batman and what was Bin Laden about the Joker and I also wondered if Harvey Dent was supposed to be Barack Obama. But the references were there; the line about how the Romans would suspend democracy, the buy American (not Chinese) and even Mayor Rudy Giuliani made an appearance. In fact there were quite a few occasions through out the film when I noticed references to current world events. But why did Batman have to run? That seemed more Bin Laden than Bush to me.
Here’s an article by a local right-wing journo who draws comparisons between Batman and Bush:
Anywho, after reading that review from the radio reviewer, (see my previous posts), I was expecting to see a convoluted, over the top shoot em up and while there was heaps of action, I thought the story line and twists were first rate. There were numerous memorable scenes and the climax was a beauty. I was totally blown away when that semi-trailer flipped on to its roof and the scene with the prisoner and the bomb detonator was good too.
As everyone has said, Heath did a great job as the Joker and I hung on his every word. I actually found myself wanting him to win even though I knew he wouldn't, not because I’m pro-evil but because the Joker was a much more interesting character than Batman and I found his motivation for being the way he was a lot stronger than Batman’s (perhaps they should've reminded us about how Batman's parents died.) However, I was bit confused about the Joker's explanations for his scars. First he said his father did it to him and then he said he got them by chewing on razor blades. Was he lying, delusional or talking about two separate incidents?
But overall it was a very good movie and is definitely worth seeing on the big screen.
The scars I think is referenced to one of the comic book source (I forgot which one at the moment) but it's discussed in the posts before. But the change of story refers to his delusional state. I had problems understanding that as well until I read the posts here and researched the comic book sources.
Gabe
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
I loved this movie, I think it hit every single bar that it needed to.
I'm not writing a review, I'm replying to others so I what I say is;
The voice is overdone but is back to the basics of the comics
Heath played the Joker amazingly well but as others have said it can be recast
Personally I thought up until the Joker got arrested it was an average film. After that it was exceptional. There was so many emotions going on in the final two thirds, it just kind of made the first act pointless....at least in my eyes. Obviously not pointless, but ya know
Pages: 
Author
The Dark Knight
Logged
Locked Board