7 Reasons Why I Couldnt Enjoy Batman

L

lordmanji

Guest
1. Some of the plot seemed forced. This is important because when the story seems to move where the writer wants rather than where it wants to go, it takes you out of the movie. These are the instances it seemed forced where I can recall:

a). Harvey Dent suddenly became evil after losing Rachel and goes on a rampage against the Police Chief Gordon and the mob bosses after speaking with the Joker. What should've happened is Harvey blaming it all on the Joker like any man in his state would have done. Yes, he left Joker's life up to chance but if he can go so far over the top against Gordon's family and his kids, he's clearly abandoned all reason. This gave us an additional act which was wholly unnecessary since the movie is long enough already.

b). Batman decides to quit being Batman for like one scene just in time to let Harvey pretend to be Batman. This allows the next sequence of events to happen but in reality, Batman wouldn't be so thin-skinned and hair-brained to think he is responsible for what the Joker does.

c). A boat full of prisoners decides NOT to blow up a bunch of innocent civilians. Rather, they let themselves be at the mercy of people who put them in jail (as jurors). They could have easily overpowered the guards and push the detonation button. But instead we got an illogical and cliched moment in which a criminal throws away the detonator so selflessly.

d). Two-Face's killings were blamed on Batman. Surely they could've blamed it on the Joker or really anyone. They have as much evidence putting Batman there as any random person. But for thematic strength that Batman as the scapegoat for the city, they chose to make an illogical choice by having Batman blamed.

e). Gordon fakes his own death. The reason he gives is that he didn't want his family to be harmed but not before long, he's revealed to be alive. We never got to see the machinations and extent to which he had covered up his death with caskets etc. Rather we get one scene where his family is informed. The real Gordon, principled and upright for justice as he is, would not have been as uncreative and cruel as to let his friends and family think this; he surely would have either found another way. Moreover, the Joker had only shown himself to target the actual people and not the family so it was nonsensical for Gordon to do that. But if Gordon hadn't done that, then we wouldn't have had a lengthy action sequence in which he's masked in SWAT gear (quite distractingly) and save Batman (though the real Batman would've been able to control his bike after dodging the Joker and not need saving).

f). Batman decides to personally save Harvey over Rachel Dawes. Rachel is his childhood best friend and love of his life but he lets Gordon save her? This is illogical and also renders him as an unemotional tool - not very good traits to have as a hero. The movie makes a point that he's the dark knight - not a hero - but to the public, Dark Knight or not, he should have saved the girl. When the protagonist of a movie chooses his mind over his heart, we lose our ability to rally behind him. (i've been told that the Joker switched the addresses and this makes sense. but this goes to reason 7 that we are not shown Batman rueing being tricked and mourning Rachel. again, its happening so fast we don't have time to understand the implications of what has happened so we end up ceasing to care.)

2. Rachel Dawes was not pretty. This might seem like an inane and sexist point, but remember Helen of Troy? The face who launched a thousand ships? Well, imagine if Rachel Dawes was Maggie Gyllenhall. The Trojan War would seem a lot less epic and more of a farce. This is because basic human nature dictates that we want to have someone worth saving and that value is determined by looks. Unfortunately, Rachel Dawes was downright unattractive and proved to be distracting to look at. What's worse is she distracted us, the audience, by making us wonder why Batman and Harvey would go through such great lengths to save not Helen but her less than beautiful sister. Not only that, we're supposed to believe she is the reason Harvey goes way over to the dark side. With the casting so great with Heath's Joker and Bale's Batman, casting Maggie was like letting a rookie play in the big leagues.

3. The dialogue was at times indecipherable. With all the loud action going around and the unfamiliar jargon being routinely bandied about, and the guttural intonations of Bale as Batman and the Joker's maniacal deliveries, it was important to know exactly what was going on in the story in order to keeping suspending our disbelief. But instead, I found myself just hearing dialogue instead of understanding the story before moving on to the next 10 minute sequences of bangs and explosions. Repeat this for 2 and a half hrs and it gets very off-putting.

4. Heath Ledger's performance was dulled by excessive cutaways. When you've been hyped up on an actor's performance for months, you want to see as much of it as possible. Towards the end we get this but for too long, we get cutaways to reaction shots to whoever else was in the room with the Joker as he spoke his lines. Reaction shots are important but not at the expense of witnessing possibly one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. That's the feeling I walked away with: Heath's performance was great, but it could've been so much more had they not moved the camera away.

5. The Joker planned everything. Even when our heroes won, they lost. It leaves us exasperated and feeling manipulated. It is a superhero movie but everything about it from the film stock to the make up and performances drip of reality. But the Joker shows superhuman premonition in predicting every step the heroes make and somehow continually getting gallons of gasoline and explosives to cover his bases. In chess, when you lose your chess pieces, they don't come back and you take that loss. But the Joker always seemed to have an unlimited supply of pieces which makes for a rigged game that isn't enjoyable to watch.

6. Much of the movie was shot in Daylight. This is the opposite of how they shot Batman Begins. I read an article at the LATimes which stated that the director wanted to showcase Batman's new and improved Batsuit. But this comes with the expense of the brooding atmosphere of Batman Begins as well as Batman 1 and 2, which are arguably all the best parts of the Batman canon. By shooting in daylight, we see more of everything: of Batman, the city and those are the two canvases where it would've been better to leave to the audiences imagination. Rather, we got to see Batman for exactly what he was which was not some mythic figure but a guy in a batsuit; we saw the city for what it was, not Gotham but a place that looked alot like New York or Vancouver in the daytime. Though the title is The Dark Knight, we spent an awful lot of time in the sun light; it's Batman, not Iron Man.

7. Everything happens too fast. Before we can digest a scene, such as Gordon's death, or Two-Face's dealing with his disfigurement, we're off and running to the next scene. It gives us more action but at the expense of character development and giving us a chance to catch our breath so that we could appreciate the next set piece.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce

Hall of Fame
I really like your analysis. You bring up some VERY good points. I partially disagree with some, but you've done a good job of capturing and expressing some of the weaknesses in the movie.
 

Breaker

Legend
For number 1. section f. Joker definitely switched the addresses, when Gordon asked him who he was going to save Batman immediately said "Rachel". He didn't have time to react to finding Harvey there since there were only seconds left before the explosion.

Number 1. section C. In my opinion it was more surprising that the "civilised" people didn't blow up the prisoners, the way the movie was going it was showing how those who are civilised can turn horribly wrong when threatened with their life and confused. Instead of killing those who had killed their own and performed a ton of crimes they spared them for the sole purpose of preserving human life. Would it happen in real life? Doubt it, but this is based on a comic book, doesn't have to be rational sometimes :)
 

xtremerunnerars

Hall of Fame
Before I give an almost as long response, have you read the comics or watched any of the multiple series (animated or live action)?

It's not a loaded question, I just want to know.
 
Last edited:

Vermillion

Banned
If Batman said he'd go find Rachel, and the Joker tricked him about the locations... why did he tell Harvey Dent that he saved Dent instead of Rachel because he was more important to the city?

Seems to me like a scene was edited out or something
 

xtremerunnerars

Hall of Fame
If Batman said he'd go find Rachel, and the Joker tricked him about the locations... why did he tell Harvey Dent that he saved Dent instead of Rachel because he was more important to the city?

Seems to me like a scene was edited out or something

Well, Bruce had been under the impression that Rachel was going to wait for him even though she really wasn't (the letter she wrote.)

He realized he'd been screwed by the Joker and this was him making the best out of the situation. By taking this stance I guess he hoped to try and get Harvey to fixate on an important role.
 

lilxjohnyy

Hall of Fame
i thought that batman saved harvey because he thought that the city needed someone to show them the way when they are in trouble but someone with a face like harvey. As a superhero even tho he loved Rachel he probably felt that Harvey was more important for the city
 

xtremerunnerars

Hall of Fame
i thought that batman saved harvey because he thought that the city needed someone to show them the way when they are in trouble but someone with a face like harvey. As a superhero even tho he loved Rachel he probably felt that Harvey was more important for the city

The Joker tricked all of them on purpose. He made Batman decide who he was going to save and then pulled that choice away from him which kept with his tactics from the rest of the movie.

The Joker tried to corrupt the incorruptible, and the switching was a ploy to send Batman over the edge.

0_o let's move this discussion to the spoilers thread.
 

anbu4ever11

Semi-Pro
no the only thing i thought was horrible was rachel.completely crappy character and actress as well i think.the whole point is the joker is his somewhat random behavior,as ur one point on harvey not just blaming the joker is not true i think.not everyperson would be thinking straight when there gf got blown to bits and ur face his half blown off as well.the joker convinces him that hey it wasnt only his fault theres others to blame,so harvey chooses to use fate as his way of getting his revenge.he had the gun to the jokers head and flipped the coin.came up letting the joker off so he did just that and went to find others responsible.to me it was a great movie except for rachel and the fact that i dont think they can make a third one better then it
 
All in all it was great movie, and you present some great points, but to each his own. The score was ridiculously good and with all the hype of Heath Ledger's performance, he was brilliant. My only problem was, READ below:


2. Rachel Dawes was not pretty. This might seem like an inane and sexist point, but remember Helen of Troy? The face who launched a thousand ships? Well, imagine if Rachel Dawes was Maggie Gyllenhall. The Trojan War would seem a lot less epic and more of a farce. This is because basic human nature dictates that we want to have someone worth saving and that value is determined by looks. Unfortunately, Rachel Dawes was downright unattractive and proved to be distracting to look at. What's worse is she distracted us, the audience, by making us wonder why Batman and Harvey would go through such great lengths to save not Helen but her less than beautiful sister. Not only that, we're supposed to believe she is the reason Harvey goes way over to the dark side. With the casting so great with Heath's Joker and Bale's Batman, casting Maggie was like letting a rookie play in the big leagues

This couldn't be a truer statement, and there many close up of her face and my friend just kept saying “she’s hideous", I mean Katie Holmes can be annoying sometimes, but she is more pleasing on the eyes. Her performance came off somewhat pompous, but I guess that's what they were aiming for.
 

Vermillion

Banned
The Joker tricked all of them on purpose. He made Batman decide who he was going to save and then pulled that choice away from him which kept with his tactics from the rest of the movie.

The Joker tried to corrupt the incorruptible, and the switching was a ploy to send Batman over the edge.

0_o let's move this discussion to the spoilers thread.

you are not answering my question lol
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
if you go to see a movie about Batman you have to be open to some stuff, I mean is about a freaking man on leotards and a bat shaped cape who speaks like he has an urgent need to go to the bathroom.
The movie was really good. The joker was awesome, you really start to hate the character at some point.
 

IceNineTX

Semi-Pro
If Batman said he'd go find Rachel, and the Joker tricked him about the locations... why did he tell Harvey Dent that he saved Dent instead of Rachel because he was more important to the city?

Seems to me like a scene was edited out or something

I missed the part where he told Dent that. But he definitely said he was going after Rachel. The Joker switched addresses.

I only had 2 issues with the movie really:

1) Leading ladies in a movie like this should be hot. However both DC and Marvel have dropped the ball more than a few times. Katie Holmes is mediocre, Kirsten Dunst is no MJ, Margot Kidder as Lois Lane? Come on.

2) That fake, deep, gravel voice that Bale used for Batman just got annoying and sometimes hard to understand.

Other than that, I was cool with things. You had your typical leaps of faith and holes, but it didn't make it a bad movie. It's no Iron-Man, but it was a plenty good.
 

abenguyen

Hall of Fame
theres only one response to this movie

f***** bad a**

excuse the somewhat language but for this movie it deserves it. the only thing i couldn't stand during the movie was batman's dumb lisp. idk if he was trying to do that but it got on my nerves. and the other annoying thing, the guy 2 seats to the left of me was sleeping and snoring fairly loud and gave me the urge to slap some sense into him but i didn't
 

SFrazeur

Legend
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa
what, are you serious?

Whenever you wish determine whether DP is serious or not use this handy measuring device:

2251792109_83dc28913c.jpg


(Grain of Salt)

-SF
 

Serve_Ace

Professional
although i did just do a google search on robert smith and he really did have a striking resembalence or the joker
 

Char

Rookie
I disagree on a lot of points, but dont read that as my being confrontational. Mine is simply another view. Your post and views I found interesting - and valid, despite my disagreeing on many. That's really the only reason I replied - not to try and debunk anything.

1. Some of the plot seemed forced.

Remember though, we're in a comic book universe. Action, characters and plot are iconic by definition.

a). Harvey Dent suddenly became evil after losing Rachel and goes on a rampage against the Police Chief Gordon and the mob bosses after speaking with the Joker.

He left the Joker's life up to chance, as you said. Its the definition of Harvey's character, and it wasnt sudden. He had that streak in him already, when Batman stops him from possibly killing the guy in the ally. Harvey's character is that of extremes, and I think the point was he was so far to the idealistic extreme that it was so easy to switch to the other side.

Imagine instead of a windshield wiper visualization of morality (far over to one side vs far over to the other side) a circular representation. If you go far enough over towards one side you literally bump up against the opposite, and therefore can very easily become the opposite. That defines Harvey, and was ultimately also the working model in the movie, as portrayed by Batman and The Joker.

Harvey went after the police because they were corrupt. They were supposed to have been on his side when he was the DA, but instead delivered Rachael to the Joker and were as guilty as he was. The Joker survived his day in court against Harvey (which is the flip of the coin) so Harvey moved on to the others responsible, coming to terms with the Joker. Just because we cant relate, not being in Harvey's state of mind (thankfully), doesnt mean its not sensible for the story or the character.

The final act wasnt so much about more Harvey as it was the transformation of Batman from the hero of Gotham to a men-ace (THAT is filtered?? lol), in all but the eyes of Gordon. Necessary imho.

b). Batman decides to quit being Batman for like one scene just in time to let Harvey pretend to be Batman.
This allows the next sequence of events to happen but in reality, Batman wouldn't be so thin-skinned and hair-brained to think he is responsible for what the Joker does.

He is responsible by trying to do the right thing. No, he didnt kill any of the people, obviously, but he is the target that the Joker wants unmasked and Bruce was there to do just that in an effort to stop the killings that he has thus far been unable to do as just one man. He cant be everywhere at once (though later he comes close to that ability through the sonar network).

Its not unlike terrorists making requests or they will kill more innocent people. We see it all the time (unfortunately) in the news especially around Israel. Bruce is giving in, or was willing to, since he saw no other way. Have to assume that when Harvey announced himself as Batman during the press conference that Bruce saw Harvey's plan and went along with it.

c). A boat full of prisoners decides NOT to blow up a bunch of innocent civilians. Rather, they let themselves be at the mercy of people who put them in jail (as jurors). They could have easily overpowered the guards and push the detonation button. But instead we got an illogical and cliched moment in which a criminal throws away the detonator so selflessly.

I'm sorry, but that was a great scene. Straight out of comic book and graphic novel lore. A cliche, yes, in most any other setting and I defy any straight run movie to pull that off, but it was pulled off successfully in the context of Dark Knight I thought.

d). Two-Face's killings were blamed on Batman. Surely they could've blamed it on the Joker or really anyone. They have as much evidence putting Batman there as any random person. But for thematic strength that Batman as the scapegoat for the city, they chose to make an illogical choice by having Batman blamed.

Batman was there, and was the most visible. He fought the SWAT teams. Again, thematic strength outweighs over thinking the plot choices in this case, in my opinion. I didnt even pause during the movie or have to make any stretch to take that in and it only became something to think about when you raised it here. Might well be my having some comic book experience from years past, and I note someone else in the thread asked if you have had experience reading comics before too. Not a criticism. Just an observation.

If I want to rationalize (I dont, but I will anyway), I'd say, the Joker was caught and Two Face was dead (so we think at the end of the movie). Harvey Dent as the idealistic DA was gone. The public needed a public champion, now the Gotham police in general, led by Gordon, to change the police and keep some sense of hope alive. Bruce had already been thinking about how a vigilante cannot be a symbol of hope, so this path was predestined, in a way. The police now had someone to chase that tried to stay outside the law, and the public had their hope that there were still ideals in Gotham. Yes, the Joker, Two Face, Riddler and many others return to Gotham, and yes, Gordon will many times rely on Batman in the future, but the symbol of Batman as hero had to be destroyed, even if he was a hero. Accepting all of that, I dont know of any better way to make it happen in a movie already short on space. And really, that's the plot. I'm not sure how someone can enjoy most movies if they say that's too forced, because all movies are to a fairly significant degree.

e). Gordon fakes his own death.

Story element and comic book type of device. Very fitting I thought and well done. For brevity's sake (I already failed) I'll skip delving into this one further.

f). Batman decides to personally save Harvey over Rachel Dawes.

He clearly says he's going to save Rachael. The Joker seems to have lied to Batman and swapped the addresses. One of those things in the movie I need to pay better attention to on a rewatch, and its possible there is a missing scene that was cut. When Batman tells Gordon he is going to save Rachael, Gordon knows which address he is to go to, so Gordon of course also heard the addresses straight from the Joker.

I interpreted it that when Batman arrives and sees Harvey, he saves him, keeping it to himself that he was expecting to find Rachael there. It was a no win choice. I think Bruce knew that, which is why he gave in to saving Rachael. He was indeed defeated and chose from his heart over the "right" choice, but the Joker had the last laugh. I didnt have any problems with this. It was a warmer tone in the film (the moment of his choice when he tells Gordon) and would have been far too cold had he said he was going to go save Harvey and then Rachael dies. It also gave the Joker the ability as a character to twist the knife a bit into the Batman.

2. Rachel Dawes was not pretty. This might seem like an inane and sexist point, but remember Helen of Troy? The face who launched a thousand ships? Well, imagine if Rachel Dawes was Maggie Gyllenhall. The Trojan War would seem a lot less epic and more of a farce. This is because basic human nature dictates that we want to have someone worth saving and that value is determined by looks. Unfortunately, Rachel Dawes was downright unattractive and proved to be distracting to look at. What's worse is she distracted us, the audience, by making us wonder why Batman and Harvey would go through such great lengths to save not Helen but her less than beautiful sister. Not only that, we're supposed to believe she is the reason Harvey goes way over to the dark side. With the casting so great with Heath's Joker and Bale's Batman, casting Maggie was like letting a rookie play in the big leagues.

This is pretty superficial. I understand what you're saying, but the entire paragraph is moot to anyone who's ever been in love. Its also a problem with Hollywood casting in general.

Helen is a good analogy though. Someone of that stature certainly had beauty but also had astonishing charisma. Beauty alone cannot do what happened in the Illiad, but a combination of beauty, love and charisma begins to make it plausible. It was the problem I had with Troy (well, there were many others and I wont digress). That Helen was pretty maybe, but lacked so many other important characteristics for Helen - presence, charisma, intangibles.

Maggie is far the better actress than Katie Holmes. I had no problems at all with this choice and think honestly she would have been better as Rachael all along, much as I would be a little foolish to not admit I am a little more attracted to the stranger that is Katie Holmes than the stranger that is Maggie Gyllenhall. Get beyond just superficial looks in real life and we all know attraction gets more complicated, which is why I'm perfectly fine with Maggie in this film. I just always have that knowledge following me around, and am even sometimes put off that everyone in movies needs to be a supermodel if they are to be a romantic lead.

Too long a reply (lol). I had more replies to other points but I'll stop here.
 
Last edited:

tricky

Hall of Fame
1. Some of the plot seemed forced. This is important because when the story seems to move where the writer wants rather than where it wants to go, it takes you out of the movie. These are the instances it seemed forced where I can recall:
I thought the movie was edited too quickly for the non-action bits. So a lot of the nuances with the storyline(s) were glossed over until you went back through the movie in your head. But in looking back, had it normal pacing, the movie might have run well over 3 hours.

Harvey Dent suddenly became evil after losing Rachel and goes on a rampage against the Police Chief Gordon and the mob bosses after speaking with the Joker.

Even though both Batman and Gordon see Harvey Dent as the "white knight", Harvey had already earned the name "Two Face" in Gordon's police department for investigating "their own." Harvey wasn't scrupulous about personally using deception and violence for his sense of justice or advancing his professional status or causing complications with the mayor's office. When he was alone with the fake police officer -- when the public eye was off him -- he was very close to popping him in order to get the information. He always walked the line, and it didn't help that certain police officers ended up stabbing him in the back (though again, not without reason) at the end of the story. His emphasis on chance either suggested he himself could not resolve the good and bad side of himself, or that he could not fully own up to the moral responsibility of making those choices.

A boat full of prisoners decides NOT to blow up a bunch of innocent civilians.
I interpreted the scene as such: the majority of both boats wanted the trigger pulled. However, neither side had an individual who would step up to press the button. (Good point made by the writers: it's much harder when you have to do it yourself.) The prisoner who took the detonator was an exception. He had the "balls" to make that decision. However, unlike most of his peers, he didn't want them to die in order for him to live.

In that sense, Joker misread the mob. He assessed correctly that at least one of the boats would want to save themselves and let the other die. However, he underestimated how difficult it is for most civilized human beings to actually kill another person, especially when it's presented as a "game" rather than an actually defensive situation.

But for thematic strength that Batman as the scapegoat for the city, they chose to make an illogical choice by having Batman blamed.
For Harvey Dent to be elevated as a martyr, thus inspiring Gotham to continue hoping for a future, Batman's viligante justice had to be shown as not justice at all. By the end of the story, Batman himself comes to realize that his cowboy brand of justice cannot really save the city.

f). Batman decides to personally save Harvey over Rachel Dawes.
What I love about the characterization of Joker is that he gave other people zero-sum situations (which is how the mobsters worked with the police and each other). . . and then he took everything away anyway (which also disturbed the mobsters.) In the opening robbery, he ordered most of his partners to kill somebody; individually, each of them probably thought they should do it in order for personal gain. None of them realized that he just did that, so that he could enjoy them killing each other off.

On the outside, Joker wanted Batman to make the tough decision, to force him to decide what he valued most at the expense of a human life. That's zero sum. However, we later realize that Joker wanted Batman to do this, so that he would lose the person he valued most. In other words, the choice was itself an illusion, and that in Joker's world, things are led by chance or the cruel whimsy of other forces. That is the stance that Harvey Dent eventually takes. Joker wasn't able to impart this lesson to Batman, but he was able to convince Harvey Dent that all is chaos just beyond the door (or in this case, the coin.)

The truth is, Joker wins virtually all the moral battles of the story except for the two boats.

2. Rachel Dawes was not pretty. This might seem like an inane and sexist point, but remember Helen of Troy?
Yeah, I've heard that sentiment from other places too. Truth is, I really liked this Rachel character; she actually seemed like somebody who would work in DA's office. Casting Maggie (who always tends to dress down people in her roles) was good because, in this story, Rachel is telling Bruce what most women would probably do in her situation. She loves him, but he's hopeless. A romantic relationship with him would be a constant therapy session about him (and probably for her.) At the same time, because she is philosophically against his vigilantism even as if both the police and the attorney general need him to defeat the terrorist.
 
Last edited:

Philsthrills

New User
Harvey wasn't scrupulous about personally using deception and violence for his sense of justice or advancing his professional status or causing complications with the mayor's office. When he was alone with the fake police officer -- when the public eye was off him -- he was very close to popping him in order to get the information.




Correct me if I am wrong, but Harvey Dent was not really ready to kill the fake police officer, but was bluffing. He had a two headed coin. The fake police officer did not know this. He gave the coin to Rachel and tells her that he makes his own luck.

In the explosion, the coin gets tarnished on one side. Now there is a heads and a tails.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
He had a two headed coin. The fake police officer did not know this.

Yeah, you might be right. I don't remember when he was showing the 2-headed coin, but I remember it was definitely there.
 

xtremerunnerars

Hall of Fame
That's a really good point Philsthrills. I haven't thought about that at all! I wonder if there was maybe a slight difference, indiscernible by most people at first sight, in the sides that only Harvey knew about. *edit* Now that I think about it, there's a chance Harvey might have had a two sided (or two faced, ha HA) coin just for occasions like when he showed (tossed?) it to Rachel. I know about the...AH god I'm confused as I write this edit. I guess I'll just need to see it again and ask them to stop the movie at that point!

Here are some neat trivia facts from IMDB:

Nestor Carbonell who plays the Mayor in "The Dark Knight" coincidentally also played "Bat Manuel", a parody of Batman in the comic-based live action "The Tick" (2001) TV series.

In the movie, Bruce Wayne drives a Lamborghini Murciélago. Murciélago is Spanish for "bat."

This is the first Batman film to not have "Batman" in the title.

SPOILER(?)


Heath Ledger improvised when he started clapping inside his jail cell in a mocking and sardonic capacity as Gordon is promoted. The clapping was not scripted but Christopher Nolan immediately encouraged the crew to continue filming and the sequence was included in the film.


END SPOILER(?)


I think that last one's really cool and shows just how into the character Heath was. Keep checking that IMDB site's trivia section because stuff has been added since I checked four days ago and it will only grow with time.
 
Last edited:

Azzurri

Legend
1. Some of the plot seemed forced. This is important because when the story seems to move where the writer wants rather than where it wants to go, it takes you out of the movie. These are the instances it seemed forced where I can recall:

a). Harvey Dent suddenly became evil after losing Rachel and goes on a rampage against the Police Chief Gordon and the mob bosses after speaking with the Joker. What should've happened is Harvey blaming it all on the Joker like any man in his state would have done. Yes, he left Joker's life up to chance but if he can go so far over the top against Gordon's family and his kids, he's clearly abandoned all reason. This gave us an additional act which was wholly unnecessary since the movie is long enough already.

b). Batman decides to quit being Batman for like one scene just in time to let Harvey pretend to be Batman. This allows the next sequence of events to happen but in reality, Batman wouldn't be so thin-skinned and hair-brained to think he is responsible for what the Joker does.

c). A boat full of prisoners decides NOT to blow up a bunch of innocent civilians. Rather, they let themselves be at the mercy of people who put them in jail (as jurors). They could have easily overpowered the guards and push the detonation button. But instead we got an illogical and cliched moment in which a criminal throws away the detonator so selflessly.

d). Two-Face's killings were blamed on Batman. Surely they could've blamed it on the Joker or really anyone. They have as much evidence putting Batman there as any random person. But for thematic strength that Batman as the scapegoat for the city, they chose to make an illogical choice by having Batman blamed.

e). Gordon fakes his own death. The reason he gives is that he didn't want his family to be harmed but not before long, he's revealed to be alive. We never got to see the machinations and extent to which he had covered up his death with caskets etc. Rather we get one scene where his family is informed. The real Gordon, principled and upright for justice as he is, would not have been as uncreative and cruel as to let his friends and family think this; he surely would have either found another way. Moreover, the Joker had only shown himself to target the actual people and not the family so it was nonsensical for Gordon to do that. But if Gordon hadn't done that, then we wouldn't have had a lengthy action sequence in which he's masked in SWAT gear (quite distractingly) and save Batman (though the real Batman would've been able to control his bike after dodging the Joker and not need saving).

f). Batman decides to personally save Harvey over Rachel Dawes. Rachel is his childhood best friend and love of his life but he lets Gordon save her? This is illogical and also renders him as an unemotional tool - not very good traits to have as a hero. The movie makes a point that he's the dark knight - not a hero - but to the public, Dark Knight or not, he should have saved the girl. When the protagonist of a movie chooses his mind over his heart, we lose our ability to rally behind him. (i've been told that the Joker switched the addresses and this makes sense. but this goes to reason 7 that we are not shown Batman rueing being tricked and mourning Rachel. again, its happening so fast we don't have time to understand the implications of what has happened so we end up ceasing to care.)

2. Rachel Dawes was not pretty. This might seem like an inane and sexist point, but remember Helen of Troy? The face who launched a thousand ships? Well, imagine if Rachel Dawes was Maggie Gyllenhall. The Trojan War would seem a lot less epic and more of a farce. This is because basic human nature dictates that we want to have someone worth saving and that value is determined by looks. Unfortunately, Rachel Dawes was downright unattractive and proved to be distracting to look at. What's worse is she distracted us, the audience, by making us wonder why Batman and Harvey would go through such great lengths to save not Helen but her less than beautiful sister. Not only that, we're supposed to believe she is the reason Harvey goes way over to the dark side. With the casting so great with Heath's Joker and Bale's Batman, casting Maggie was like letting a rookie play in the big leagues.

3. The dialogue was at times indecipherable. With all the loud action going around and the unfamiliar jargon being routinely bandied about, and the guttural intonations of Bale as Batman and the Joker's maniacal deliveries, it was important to know exactly what was going on in the story in order to keeping suspending our disbelief. But instead, I found myself just hearing dialogue instead of understanding the story before moving on to the next 10 minute sequences of bangs and explosions. Repeat this for 2 and a half hrs and it gets very off-putting.

4. Heath Ledger's performance was dulled by excessive cutaways. When you've been hyped up on an actor's performance for months, you want to see as much of it as possible. Towards the end we get this but for too long, we get cutaways to reaction shots to whoever else was in the room with the Joker as he spoke his lines. Reaction shots are important but not at the expense of witnessing possibly one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. That's the feeling I walked away with: Heath's performance was great, but it could've been so much more had they not moved the camera away.

5. The Joker planned everything. Even when our heroes won, they lost. It leaves us exasperated and feeling manipulated. It is a superhero movie but everything about it from the film stock to the make up and performances drip of reality. But the Joker shows superhuman premonition in predicting every step the heroes make and somehow continually getting gallons of gasoline and explosives to cover his bases. In chess, when you lose your chess pieces, they don't come back and you take that loss. But the Joker always seemed to have an unlimited supply of pieces which makes for a rigged game that isn't enjoyable to watch.

6. Much of the movie was shot in Daylight. This is the opposite of how they shot Batman Begins. I read an article at the LATimes which stated that the director wanted to showcase Batman's new and improved Batsuit. But this comes with the expense of the brooding atmosphere of Batman Begins as well as Batman 1 and 2, which are arguably all the best parts of the Batman canon. By shooting in daylight, we see more of everything: of Batman, the city and those are the two canvases where it would've been better to leave to the audiences imagination. Rather, we got to see Batman for exactly what he was which was not some mythic figure but a guy in a batsuit; we saw the city for what it was, not Gotham but a place that looked alot like New York or Vancouver in the daytime. Though the title is The Dark Knight, we spent an awful lot of time in the sun light; it's Batman, not Iron Man.

7. Everything happens too fast. Before we can digest a scene, such as Gordon's death, or Two-Face's dealing with his disfigurement, we're off and running to the next scene. It gives us more action but at the expense of character development and giving us a chance to catch our breath so that we could appreciate the next set piece.

Gee, guess it was not a perfect film.:rolleyes:

I thought the Joker gave him the incorrect address as to where Rachel and Dent were, he switched it. I thought he(Batman) was trying to save rachel?:confused: You are completely..INCORRECT on that little rant. Batman was going to save RACHEL, NOT Dent.
 
Last edited:

el sergento

Hall of Fame
I thought the movie was edited too quickly for the non-action bits. So a lot of the nuances with the storyline(s) were glossed over until you went back through the movie in your head. But in looking back, had it normal pacing, the movie might have run well over 3 hours.

That's because Nolan made a Michael Bay movie. The ultra fast editing was distracting, it took away from the emotional element of the dialogue and it pretty much ruined the action. It was a Bad Boys movie with costumes.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
That's because Nolan made a Michael Bay movie.

Nah, if Nolan made a Michael Bay movie, it would have been refashioned as a kind of urban western. The detailing in the story is all there, but they edited the film at a high clip so they can fit all of the story in an already long running time. And, yes, it prevents some of the moments from sticking emotionally.

In terms of the action, Nolan borrowed a lot of elements from Michael Mann. He did a very good job using overhead shots and such to map out the territory before the different players engaged it. Did a marvelous job giving the street-level views of th city at night a Blade Runner-ish by making the streets look really narrow. The truck vs cycle bit recalled Scorsese with the way he shot a lot of it with close-ups of both Batman and Joker looking/talking at each other. He did a good job showing the heist and explosions within a believable urban environment. When the hospital blows up, it sticks with you that this hospital could have been your local hospital.
 

ATXtennisaddict

Hall of Fame
That's what I thought, Joker switched addresses of Harvey and Rachel...my friends were wondering and that's what I thought happened.

But kick ass movie. KICK ASS.
 

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Nah, if Nolan made a Michael Bay movie, it would have been refashioned as a kind of urban western. The detailing in the story is all there, but they edited the film at a high clip so they can fit all of the story in an already long running time. And, yes, it prevents some of the moments from sticking emotionally.

In terms of the action, Nolan borrowed a lot of elements from Michael Mann. He did a very good job using overhead shots and such to map out the territory before the different players engaged it. Did a marvelous job giving the street-level views of th city at night a Blade Runner-ish by making the streets look really narrow. The truck vs cycle bit recalled Scorsese with the way he shot a lot of it with close-ups of both Batman and Joker looking/talking at each other. He did a good job showing the heist and explosions within a believable urban environment. When the hospital blows up, it sticks with you that this hospital could have been your local hospital.

You pretty much, although inadvertently, summed up my problem with Nolan's direction: He has no distinct style and tends to play it by the numbers.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
You pretty much, although inadvertently, summed up my problem with Nolan's direction: He has no distinct style and tends to play it by the numbers.
Not at all, and all directors borrow liberally from each other. I feel the consistent motif in Nolan's work is in how he turns noir and pulp fiction into "hermetic" stories (especially so with The Prestige, which I feel was his best work.) Stuff that has internal symbols, private rituals, secret handshakes, special hideways, extreme puzzles/riddles, etc. (Especially true with Batman Begins, you could tell he had most fun putting Wayne in the mountains doing his Ultimate Ninja training.) I thought he was more successful here than in Batman Begins in forming the story around that.

You may have issues with his basic strategy for the films. Burton turned Batman into a absurd and macabre fairy tale. His characters are all vividly neurotic and he found sympathy in the most unlikely situations. Nolan turned Batman into a crime saga using some of the comic backstory as a means to elevate the story into a classical tragedy (though without using the surreal flair that Scorsese or the baroque gestures that Coppola that would have used.)
 
Last edited:

el sergento

Hall of Fame
Not at all, and all directors borrow liberally from each other. I feel the consistent motif in Nolan's work is in how he turns noir and pulp fiction into "hermetic" stories (especially so with The Prestige, which I feel was his best work.) Stuff that has internal symbols, private rituals, secret handshakes, special hideways, extreme puzzles/riddles, etc. (Especially true with Batman Begins, you could tell he had most fun putting Wayne in the mountains doing his Ultimate Ninja training.) I thought he was more successful here than in Batman Begins in forming the story around that.

Around what?? Around the hermetic nature of the Batman universe, Gotham, the Characters?? If so I'd have to disagree. By trying to make his movie socially relevant, i.e., the references to terrorism and torture, or how Freeman's character resigns after using the god-like power of that silly radar vision, he essentially had to open up that universe to make it "realistic", and the only way to do that was to make Gotham look just like any other large, faceless city. In other words, he didn't imbue the city with a unique flair or style; his art direction was very tame. At the core of the problem is that he's striving for realism in a highly fictional environment, but I want to see Batman, not The Departed.

Also, Batman goes to Hong-Kong thereby completely shattering any notion of a "hermetic" universe for the viewer and, at that point, the movie essentially becomes MI3 for a useless 10 minutes just to set up the radar vision.

You may have issues with his basic strategy for the films. Burton turned Batman into a absurd and macabre fairy tale. His characters are all vividly neurotic and he found sympathy in the most unlikely situations. Nolan turned Batman into a crime saga using some of the comic backstory as a means to elevate the story into a classical tragedy (though without using the surreal flair that Scorsese or the baroque gestures that Coppola that would have used.)

What exactly was Nolan's strategy though?? His approach was so hybridized, for lack of a better term, that the movie lacks a unique vision: It's part noir, part crime, part gangster, part superhero, part spy (think Hong-Kong and the radar device) part everything. That's why he employs such quick editing tricks, so you can't focus on anything for too long, why? Because he's not really showing you anything that interesting. His pacing is also suspect, to have such a great story and great actors and characters and still have parts that drag is unforgivable.
 
Last edited:

tricky

Hall of Fame
By trying to make his movie socially relevant, i.e., the references to terrorism and torture, or how Freeman's character resigns after using the god-like power of that silly radar vision, he essentially had to open up that universe to make it "realistic", and the only way to do that was to make Gotham look just like any other large, faceless city.

But Gotham doesn't look like any large faceless city. Gotham looks like Chicago, and Nolan doesn't hide from that with the way he shot the skyline and highlighted the lesser known landscapes. The bits about terrorism and torture are relevant to who the Joker is. If they did it around, say, the Penguin, it wouldn't work.

In other words, he didn't imbue the city with a unique flair or style; his art direction was very tame.

Oh, not at all. Nolan builds the city around views of tall, almost obelisk-like skyscapers. Nolan also uses some terrific horizon-disappearing shots to give the interiors an isolating and hermetic, as if some buildings themselves were like secret tunnels or caves where men of power and few met (similar to Michael Mann.) He also use the same effect to narrow the alleys and streets of the city, to kind of create the sense that everything and anything were very close to each other, the good guys and the baddies were crowded together.

At the core of the problem is that he's striving for realism in a highly fictional environment, but I want to see Batman, not The Departed.

Yeah, but something like the Departed was a completely different beast. That was, thanks to Monihan's script, an awesome exercise in locale myth making.

Also, Batman goes to Hong-Kong thereby completely shattering any notion of a "hermetic" universe for the viewer and, at that point, the movie essentially becomes MI3 for a useless 10 minutes just to set up the radar vision.

Not at all, because the story is essentially begins in transition. As the story is setup, the cops, DA and Batmen believed that there were essentially one mission away from sealing their urban victory for Gotham. It's, in fact, the success of this mission that really sets the wheels for the mobsters to help the Joker, and for the Joker story to really begin. The Hong Kong bit enables Nolan to establishes a practical (and colloborative) crime situation whereby the main wheels of the story can really begin. It's a standard device used in urban crime dramas usually done to set up the true main story, which is hermetic.

t's part noir, part crime, part gangster, part superhero, part spy (think Hong-Kong and the radar device) part everything.

Batman, in terms of graphic novels and in the Burton and Nolan films, are usually treated as pulp noir. (And almost all of Nolan's work are noir-ish thrillers.) Noir often involves crime, gangster, and sometimes esoteric treatments of good and evil. The whole arc of a good man turning evil (and insane) is a classic noir trope. Both Spiderman and Superman aren't noir; so it wouldn't make sense to put Spidey or The Man of Steel in a sprawling, urban wasteland, or cast the characters in shadows or among shady, cynical men. But it is Batman's native environment and the most appropriate for doing crime dramas like what Nolan has been doing.
 

schu47

Rookie
This is a note for Abenguyen. Sorry to interrupt the thread (I tried to go to Batman opening weekend but it was sold out, so can't add my opinion), but I wonder if you could contact me, Abenguyen, about an old thread of yours from last year. I have a question. My name is Steve, my email is schu11@charter.net. Hope to hear from you.
 

Leelord337

Hall of Fame
also batman sounded like a chain smoker, they should've got the guy that plays snake on metal gear solid to play batman.
 

Morpheus

Professional
The Joker tricked all of them on purpose. He made Batman decide who he was going to save and then pulled that choice away from him which kept with his tactics from the rest of the movie.

The Joker tried to corrupt the incorruptible, and the switching was a ploy to send Batman over the edge.

0_o let's move this discussion to the spoilers thread.

Yes, this is correct. The Joker is, after all, The Joker.
 
Top