Superman's character is so dull to me. With Batman and Spider-Man you have tormented souls behind the mask. Both are vulnerable. When they leave the house to go fight injustice, they're vulneralbe. Both get their ass kicked around a bit. Superman is without vulnerability, aside from a rock from a distant planet. That's very difficult for audiences to relate to. And I'm sorry to say, I don't find much courage in it.
I was pretty bored by the last superman that came out a couple years ago (or was that last year?). It was just pointless. Batman would've annihilated Lex in 3 seconds. No way Batman would let some rich bald guy get the best of him.
Seriously, lets face it, the Superman story is lame. It lacks depth and it's not intelligent. Meaning, Superman movies will never have you thinking 'what's gonna happen next'. I can tell ya what's gonna happen next. He's gonna get away from that kryptonite and defeat his foes, handily. I won't go see another Superman movie until he dies. Way to think of a story, 'Hey how about a guy who is invincible from a different planet!'...FAIL. Nolan has pushed to make the most realistic superhero even MORE real. He toned down ALL of what makes Batman super actually. His detective skills, his weaponry, his suit, his fighting skills, his intelligence...all of it was toned down to make the movie more real. What would you tone down with Superman? That's right, you can't. Marvel better get their acts together because TDK is taking away what makes their series' special.
Saw it last night and was not as impressed as the rest of you. Here are my reasons.... Spoiler 1) There are several scenes that really add nothing to the main storyline or "message" of the film. The scene with the Scarecrow, the capture of the guy from Hong Kong, and (less so) the initial Joker bank heist - they all seemed more of an excuse to justify an action sequence. In particular, the subplot with the crooked Hong Kong banker didn't require the capture sequence - it could have occurred offscreen and nothing would have been lost. 2) Batman is supposed to be one of the best hand-to-hand fighters in the world, but the hand-to-hand fight sequences are pretty mediocre. I realize that's partly because of the suit, but still.... 3) The scene where the Joker invades the fundraiser for Harvey Dent - the whole thing just ends after Batman saves Rachel. The Joker had just taken a whole room hostage looking for Harvey Dent - did he just take a taxi home after he threw Rachel out the window? It would have taken just a 3-5 minute scene to wrap this up properly - some of the other crap in the film could have cut easily. 4) Cop incompetence - did it never occur to the cops in the car chase scene to shoot back at the Joker? 5) The plot was too thick for one movie - I think there was just a bit too much in this film which meant certain things got short-shrift. In particular, the Harvey Dent subplot deserved its own movie - they were really on to something with the idea that because of a shared, deep commitment to and passion for eradicating crime, Batman/Bruce Wayne would support someone so clearly close to the edge like Dent. With all this said, I still enjoyed the film and it's best moments are better than any comic book movie I've seen. The acting was mostly top-notch all around (though Bale was definitely outclassed by Ledger and Eckhart). And whoever was responsible for Spoiler the Two-Face makeup/CGI (it was so good I couldn't tell either way) deserves an Oscar - it was magnificent.
i think you missed quite a bit of the point if you think harvey dent's story was just a subplot of this movie. this whole movie centered around harvey dent and the ideological battle he, along with batman and the joker, was engaged in. you're absolutely right that he deserves his own movie; and this was it. don't let the joker's inescapable presence fool you into thinking that the movie was about the joker. nolan said that they planned all along to have dent's story be the crux of the movie; the joker is just the catalyst that pushes everything forward to its tragic end. besides, what more would you have wanted them to do with the dent story? 1 hour of him being good and 1 hour of him being bad? his character arc was fleshed out sufficiently, anything more might have been overbearing. aaron eckhart did a great enough job selling dent's earnest desire to do good that too much more of it would have been a little annoying.
I never said that the Dent aspect was a subplot (the Hong Kong thing was a subplot and totally unnecessary) - but rather that it deserved its own movie. The Dark Knight certainly devoted a great deal of time to him, but he's also competing with a lot of other things (including the not so subtle 911 references). As a result, I think the psychological background of Dent was wrongly left out Spoiler My view is partly clouded by the fact that I read Batman religiously in the late 80s/early 90s, when the influence of The Dark Knight Returns and the 50th anniversary of Batman led the writers of the time to really investigate the psychological backgrounds of all the characters. What made Dent such an interesting character is his initial similarity to Batman. He's a person with a strong passion and drive for justice, but he's also clearly on the edge. The scarring pushes him over the edge, but that's just the proverbial straw - it could have been anything. This movie didn't delve into that pre-Two Face psychology, which is what the "other half" of the movie could have been dedicated to.
I think the only guy who can play the joker and have a chance would be DDL. I could just imagine the joker telling batman: I drink your milkshake
I disagree because I think the movie did 'delve' into that. I think using Two Face, in the context of this particular plot, worked perfectly. Spoiler TDK establishes everything you are talking about. Dent's similarity to Batman, that 'strong passion and drive for justice', only on the 'right' side of the law. Hence the 'White Knight' nickname. Not too mention the way he actually starts to clean up the city - without putting on a mask. He does enough good that Batman considers quitting because he might not be needed anymore. Someone is doing it the 'right way'. But also that he's clearly on the edge. As he start to gets pushed that starts to take shape. The scene where he kidnaps one of Joker's men on his own and attempts/threatens to kill him if he doesn't talk. Gun at the guy's head. Dent is clearly losing control when pushed. I think he even uses the coin then before Batman stops him. Right there we get a very good idea of how close Dent is to being to over the top. (Which leads to Joker's "Madness is like gravity. All it needs is a push.") I think using Dent with Joker and Batman in this movie worked really, really well.
Spoiler As I've said before...I think the Scarecrow scene was important because it puts some closure on the character. The weapon he used against Batman and his enemies/patients in the first film is gone and he's been reduced to a petty drug dealer wearing a mask. It was a nice touch to bring him back for a brief appearance. Not only that but that scene sets up Bruce's desire to design a lighter, more agile suite. It also shows that he is inspiring Gotham's citizens to do good, just not in the way that he imagined. The Hong Kong scene was important in three ways: first it gave you the first look of the sonar device that Lucious Fox developed, and Wayne later expanded toward the end of the movie. Considering the sonar system was integral in catching the Joker at the end of the film, I'm glad the filmmakers chose to show the technology in its infancy and not just pass it off as some cool gadget Batman had all along. Not only that but it sets up the scene where Lucious discovers what Wayne did with his invention; taking it and using it for good, but unethical purposes. That's a key moment in their relationship. And also, it shows you how the Chinese guy was captured; I'm not one that desires everything to be laid out in front of me, but personally I would have felt a little bit jilted if all you saw was him being dropped at the footsteps of Gordon's unit. Plus, it shows you that Batman (I think as the Joker put it) has no jurisdiction. He'll find you and take you down. And the opening Bank scene was an absolute perfect way to set the tone for the movie; there was no big-money shot action sequence in that scene so I don't see how it was shot to justify throwing in some action. It not only sets the tone but it introduces you to the Joker and a small sample of the psychotic monster he is You could maybe argue that some scenes possibly ran long (but that's a hard argument to make as it's a quick 2.5 hours. But what is so cool about this film is that when you look back upon it, every single scene serves the story in some way or another. Every scene has a reason. Whether it's to move the story, to develop a character, to introduce an important piece of weaponry or to set up another scene further down the line...it all connects in the end. Even Bruce's Russian Ballet dancer date at the beginning; you don't think much of it at the time but it later sets up the alibi for him on his trip to Hong Kong.
Excellent film!! But I felt that I was the only one teary eye in some of the scenes and decisions during the movie.
well you definitely did otherwise i wouldn't have said anything... but other than that i agree that they didn't FULLY explore everything they could have regarding dent's psychological state. but even if they made a 2 hour movie just about dent, they wouldn't be able to do that, and it wouldve been boring if they didn't also have batman, who is already accused of being absent far too much in the dark knight. sometimes less is more and in my opinion, the dark knight gave us just enough of harvey and the joker to rile us up and leave us wanting more, the mark of a truly great movie. my only complaint is that batman's suit is still too bulky and prevents us from seeing some cool, ninja-style fight scenes.
I got a little choked up here and there...not much...but again it might hit me more when I watch it a second time. Don't think I've mentioned it but I definitely would like to see them return to a rebuilt Wayne Manor and Bat Cave for the third film. Rebuild the Tumbler too to where it starts to resemble the batmobile more...like a cross between the bat car in the first two films and Tim Burton's version..something more sleek, but still practical and military in style.
You're right - I did call it subplot. But that was a poor choice of wording on my part - I would not classify it as a subplot the same way I would the Hong Kong sequences. I don't agree that a great movie should always leave you wanting more. Certain cinematic gimmicks, yes, certain gimmicky characters, yes, but not main characters.
but what are some movies that you would consider great which also give you as much as you could possibly want? to me it is inconsistent to call a movie great yet also leave feeling completely satisfied after watching it. if that were the case, i would have no desire or occasion to watch it again. the best movies i have seen are movies i have seen numerous times and will likely watch again in the future. and i would much rather watch a movie that leaves me wanting more than a movie which fleshes everything out, even if i might want that, because watching such a movie more than once would result in oversaturation and overexpoure.
Just about every great movie made....I don't even know where to begin. I think you're right that fleshing things out more can leave to oversaturation, but I don't think the Dark Knight was in any danger of that. And the problems I had could have been resolved with a couple of short extra scenes. Cut.... Spoiler the scene with the Scarecrow (totally not necessary and incompatible with the psychology of the Scarecrow as someone who gets off on scaring people) and the drawn out Hong Kong capture ....and you haven't added any minutes to the length. Overall, this movie was more a series of great scenes than a great movie. It's still miles better than any super hero film I've seen (except maybe Unbreakable), and I'm critical because it could have so easily been perfect.
