The part where Superman shoots a huge magic S out of his chest to seran wrap one of the bad guys was awesome. I love that movie, but the stuff that they pull out in those movies is beyond ridiculous, even for Superman.
This is why I disagree with you.... Spoiler 1. I guess you missed that Batman didn't like the idea of ordinary citizens helping like this - he tied them up along with the rest of the criminals. When the guy says he was just trying to help, Batman even says "not like this" (or something to that effect). If the next film goes in the direction I think it is (Batman as a scapegoat), it would have fit in perfectly there. But it's not very effective or crucial for this film. 2. This wasn't a 007 picture. And it was already 2.5 hrs. Not necessary. 3. I see your point but I think this could have done more succinctly. For example, you could have begun the movie with Gordon investigating the robbery and being puzzled by the security cameras showing the various accomplices getting shot. Combine that with the "pencil disappearing" scene and you've established the Joker's evil quite well (and improved the pace). BTW, was anyone else bothered by the way the fundraiser scene ended so abruptly? That seemed pretty crucial to the plot IMHO, but they just moved on to the next scene.
Spoiler Pointless action. And what's worse, Nolen has a whole abbreviated setup to go along with it. I am a writer myself and I could probably tell you that, without a doubt, nolen did not know how to weave in the idea about a social experiment into the main set up, so he tacked it at the end. Having a whole character arch for two face at the end of the movie was beyond stupid. Nolen could have weaved the Dark Knight idea into the main story, but chose to make a whole another action sequence to reinforce that idea. It was all pretty lame and beyond boring and this from a guy that thought the movie was nearly perfect up until commissioner gordon saves batman. The movie should have ended with batman saving two face.
When you get more sophisticated you won't. Action upon action for no other reason but action is a fan boy's dream. But when you get older it will be like plowing a steel nail through your cranium.
The Hong Kong scene showed that Batman "has no limits". He can go anywhere, do anything. He works above the law. International borders don't matter to him - there's no hiding. The mob thought they could protect themselves by working with an untouchable Chinese businessman. Batman proved them wrong. I thought the whole scene was pretty cool and had plenty of reason for being in the movie. But that's just me.
If anything the last part of the movie needs to be cut. The first part is perfect for those who like a story rather 2 hours of mindless action sequences.
Spoiler yeah, i agree with the end of that fundraiser scene - it ended with batman jumping out the window after joker let maggie go. the joker and his people were still inside! did the joker apologize to everyone and kindly let himself out? that bothered me bigtime.
Joker's only objective in crashing the party was to kill Harvey Dent. When Batman jumped out of the window to save Rachel, the Joker believed Batman to be Harvey Dent (he says this later on). With the Joker believing Dent to be out of the building, there was no reason for him to stay.
Everyone is entitled to an OPINION, but the way you express yours makes you look like an ass. I'm surprised someone as sophisticated as you isn't aware of that.
Not unknown but I remember there wasn't much praise that he was going to be the Joker. People thought no one could top Jack Nicholsen's Joker either, and look what happened. He's been in a bunch of movies I've seen, but his first few films was him being mostly eye candy I thought. In the Patriot his role in my opinion was to attract women to the theaters by being the soldier away at war still in love with his woman. 10 Things was pretty much a teenage flick where again he's supposed to be the attractive guy that brings in the ladies. Monster's Ball I haven't seen but yea that's definitely not the same role as the above two. Knight's Tale again another attractive male lead actor with a love interest. Outside of Monster's Ball, I can't recall him doing a serious flick until he acted in Brokeback, and homosexuality aside, it was still a romance flick, albeit a pretty tragic one. So by my standards, and my standards alone, he was relatively unknown in determining what kind of range he had as an actor. The Joker showcased it, and I think that's what made his version even more spectacular. I think there is a possibility for another actor to be on par as Ledger's Joker, but I think it'll have to be an actor who is relatively unknown in terms of range much like Ledger. Again no one thought Ledger could top Nicholsen's Joker and he did. You can't rule out that there won't at least be an adequate substitute.
I have a quick question for those of you who have seen all the Batman movies. I have not seen any single Batman movie (crazy, huh). I need to know if I need to see them all in order or can I just watch Batman Begins followed by Dark Knight.
I loved the Hong Kong scene, ranks below the Social experiment scene within the movie (possibly because I'm from Hong Kong). Damnit, why couldn't I have the luck and fortune to walk right past these guys while filming?
Batman Begins is a reboot with the origin of Batman....The other films have a completely different storyline. So yes, you can just watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and you won't be "lost".
Why are so many of you all worked up over an extra 30 minutes of action. Every scene and I mean EVERY scene was so feakin cool. Did the Japanese scene need to be there? Probably not...but was it cool to watch? I don't recall anyone in the packed theatre yawning during that awesome scene. You people forget you paid up to $9 to be entertained? Were you not entertained? I'd rather waste an extra 30 minutes in a nice air conditioned theater watching really amazing cinematography and action sequences than some crappy reality show or...say.....mowing my lawn! Dark Knight was awesome...anyone that says differently needs to get that corncob out of their arse and lighten up!
Know why the last 30 minutes should NOT be cut... Spoiler Joker's whole objective was to create chaos...as Alfred pointed out to Bruce, he's the type of guy that wants to set the world on fire just to see the it burn...just about every single scene of his, every move he made, was to create chaos and social disorder. Forcing 3 guys to fight over one position he was offering with a broken pool stick, kidnapping Dent and Rachel Dawes and telling batman he can only save one, calling into the news show to tell all of Gotham that if Reese isn't dead by a certain time he'll blow up one hospital and then the climactic ferry sequence...every single one of those moments the Joker was trying to create chaos. But the Joker's plan failed when the people in both ferries ultimately refused to press the detonator. If you cut that out, then the Joker wins. Batman's fight using the sonar system was pretty cool on a number of different levesl; here you have a guy that uses the image of a bat as his mask and as a tool to bring fear to the criminals of Gotham...and in this final scene, he, like an actual bat would, uses sonar to locate the Joker and his henchmen. There's just something bad ass about that moment. Not only that but the scene prior brings up some moral and ethical issues between him and Lucious Fox regarding the use of this system; I think it's an important part in their relationship; one that is rewarded in the end. Seriously, you cut the last thirty minutes from this film, you have an incomplete movie and a world where the Joker has won. You may be a writer, but I'll venture to say that you are in a very small minority that has a problem with the end. Don't be surprised if it's nominated for some best screenplay awards.
Spoiler as someone who is supposedly sophisticated (or at least moreso than the people he condescendingly disagrees with) and a writer, surely you recognize that ending the movie where you wanted would have left the main story arc unresolved. from a pure storytelling perspective, such an ending would be incredibly unsatisfying, leaving critical questions unanswered (batman and dent's respective responses to the joker's terrorism) while failing to raise the more lasting, introspective ones that are raised by the last scene of the movie. its ok not to like the movie as much as someone else does, but to claim that the only reason other people enjoy it because they lack your level of "sophistication" betrays your inability to properly communicate your criticisms. some of your proposed edits make me question your own level of "sophistication." really, cutting out the opening scene and jumping straight into a gordon-conducted investigation of an off-screen heist? yeah that would have set the tone of the movie much better. cut the HK "extradition" and go straight to lau lying on GPD's front steps? sure, who needs to tell the story on-screen, just have someone stand there and narrate all the action scenes. come on, its a movie, not a shakespearean play.
Spoiler Wow. That would be an absolutely horrible way to end the movie. The whole movie is built around this war between Batman and Joker in which Joker believes inside every one of us is a corruptible, insane person just like him. Without that last 30 minutes there’s no resolution. That scene with the Joker and two-face in the hospital in which the Joker gives him that last nudge he needed to finally push him over the edge is crucial to the movie. That scene is gold.
I'm in total agreement here, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. It would have been a darker more memoriable ending imo. There were a few parts I enjoyed in the last 30, but overall it was mostly silly.
