"The Dark Knight" movie review and discussion (SPOILERS)

[Redz]

Finally got to see this tonight.

Excellent movie, but after all the praise I'd heard my expectations were ridiculously high.  Ledger was indeed a great Joker.  The nurse's outfit was fantastic.

I didn't get why Wayne's voice got so deep when he was Batman, but I could get over that...Part of his disguise perhaps?

The pencil trick was great.

Fun movie.  Couldn't believe how young some of the kids in the audience were.

[steve]

I have some questions...

Did the joker switch the addresses, if so why?

Who did Batman think he was going to save?

What was the theme/message of the entire movie?

[Redz]

I have some questions...

Did the joker switch the addresses, if so why?

Who did Batman think he was going to save?

What was the theme/message of the entire movie?

The theme was "a little white lie is ok if it's for the better of the whole"

[BigThreePeat]

I have some questions...

Did the joker switch the addresses, if so why?

Who did Batman think he was going to save?

What was the theme/message of the entire movie?

#1 - Yes... he switched the address.   He did so... cuz he's the Joker.  He told Batman he'd break his one rule and in the Joker's demented little mind, he made Batman kill Rachel

#2 -  He thought he was going to save Rachel.  As he runs out of the police station, Gordon shouts, "Who are you going for?!" and Batman responds "RACHEL!".   The police force went to the 2nd location assuming they were saving Harvey.   Batman arrives at the "Rachel" location only to find Harvey instead.    This went over my head the first time I watched it.  Like some previous posters, I thought he decided to save Harvey simply because Harvey was the more important character to the city.  In reality, he tried to save Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses.

#3 - Well there were several themes.  I'll let someone else answer that.   One of the main themes was about the role of a hero in society.   Another was whether or not people had any good in them or if at the end of the day we're all the same deplorable creatures as The Joker.... if one bad day could turn us into that same character.   But meh... someone else can explain the themes better than me.

[steve]

I have some questions...

Did the joker switch the addresses, if so why?

Who did Batman think he was going to save?

What was the theme/message of the entire movie?

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process. 

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero. 

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

#1 - Yes... he switched the address.   He did so... cuz he's the Joker.  He told Batman he'd break his one rule and in the Joker's demented little mind, he made Batman kill Rachel

#2 -  He thought he was going to save Rachel.  As he runs out of the police station, Gordon shouts, "Who are you going for?!" and Batman responds "RACHEL!".   The police force went to the 2nd location assuming they were saving Harvey.   Batman arrives at the "Rachel" location only to find Harvey instead.    This went over my head the first time I watched it.  Like some previous posters, I thought he decided to save Harvey simply because Harvey was the more important character to the city.  In reality, he tried to save Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses.

#3 - Well there were several themes.  I'll let someone else answer that.   One of the main themes was about the role of a hero in society.   Another was whether or not people had any good in them or if at the end of the day we're all the same deplorable creatures as The Joker.... if one bad day could turn us into that same character.   But meh... someone else can explain the themes better than me.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

I think a large part of the movie is that Batman *isn't* infallible, he's *not* a perfect superhero.  Harvey Dent was "the perfect man"; Batman is a flawed guy.  Noble and heroic, but flawed.  He wasn't sure he was up to the task, and in fact, was ready to hang up his cape if that's what it took to get Rachel.  His very human emotion of love won out of his selfless heroic side.

I don't think this was a plot hole, so much as an essential plot device to demonstrate that Batman isn't a heroic archetype, but rather, a "dark knight" (as opposed to the more perfect white knight).

[steve]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

I think a large part of the movie is that Batman *isn't* infallible, he's *not* a perfect superhero.  Harvey Dent was "the perfect man"; Batman is a flawed guy.  Noble and heroic, but flawed.  He wasn't sure he was up to the task, and in fact, was ready to hang up his cape if that's what it took to get Rachel.  His very human emotion of love won out of his selfless heroic side.

I don't think this was a plot hole, so much as an essential plot device to demonstrate that Batman isn't a heroic archetype, but rather, a "dark knight" (as opposed to the more perfect white knight).

i think your right but I think at least half of the audience either doesn't know what happened or thinks that batman knew he was going to save dent.  Maybe it's not a plot hole but it's at least bad story telling.   

[crownsy]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

I think a large part of the movie is that Batman *isn't* infallible, he's *not* a perfect superhero.  Harvey Dent was "the perfect man"; Batman is a flawed guy.  Noble and heroic, but flawed.  He wasn't sure he was up to the task, and in fact, was ready to hang up his cape if that's what it took to get Rachel.  His very human emotion of love won out of his selfless heroic side.

I don't think this was a plot hole, so much as an essential plot device to demonstrate that Batman isn't a heroic archetype, but rather, a "dark knight" (as opposed to the more perfect white knight).

thats also a huge part of his comic book character. he's always protrayed as the most "human" superhero with regards to failing.

and, honestly Steve, if half your audience didn't get that he went to save racheal (if i read what your saying right) then thats there issue, i didn't find it hard to understand from the "i'm going after racheal!" line he yells at gordon.

It reminds me of when i went to see V for vendetta and this group of 5 people were complaining how it had horrible editing because at the end dead people were dressed up as V's  . these people were dead serous, they thought they had discovered some grand mistake. If they don't get symbolism or can't follow the plot, thats their issue, not the movies 

[steve]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

I think a large part of the movie is that Batman *isn't* infallible, he's *not* a perfect superhero.  Harvey Dent was "the perfect man"; Batman is a flawed guy.  Noble and heroic, but flawed.  He wasn't sure he was up to the task, and in fact, was ready to hang up his cape if that's what it took to get Rachel.  His very human emotion of love won out of his selfless heroic side.

I don't think this was a plot hole, so much as an essential plot device to demonstrate that Batman isn't a heroic archetype, but rather, a "dark knight" (as opposed to the more perfect white knight).

thats also a huge part of his comic book character. he's always protrayed as the most "human" superhero with regards to failing.

and, honestly Steve, if half your audience didn't get that he went to save racheal (if i read what your saying right) then thats there issue, i didn't find it hard to understand from the "i'm going after racheal!" line he yells at gordon.

It reminds me of when i went to see V for vendetta and this group of 5 people were complaining how it had horrible editing because at the end dead people were dressed up as V's  . these people were dead serous, they thought they had discovered some grand mistake. If they don't get symbolism or can't follow the plot, thats their issue, not the movies 

People assumed that Batman would do the "greater good" thing because the movie was setting himself up to do that.  Even though he said "i'm going after rachael" there was confusion when he showed up at the dent location. 

I'm just saying that it's amazing that some people are saying this movie is great and they have the ending and point of the movie completely backwards. 

If you're in to comic books then you knew that batman was the most human of all the superheros but most people are basing it off of previous batmans and other comic book movies. 

My other problem is Maggie Gylenhal's character wasn't worth anybody saving. 

[TheReaLPuba]

I find it very interesting the title of the movie actually fits the NEXT movie better.

At the end you have Batman running...fleeing from cops (LOL! Like he really couldn't take them out without hurting them...riiight) and he didn't actually save anyone as both Harvey and Rachel end up dying.

Now you got Batman with a poor rep and the majority of Gotham now thinks he's really a vigilante more so than a superhero who got some innocent ppl killed.

[BigThreePeat]

hey fellas... I had a dream last night that another Batman was coming out. I saw the trailer and it was like... Batman breaking into some military installation... lots of explosions and stuff. And people were excited. They were like "Another Batman! It's like Batman meets Commando!" ... but I was watching the trailer and thinking, "good god what the heck... This aint right. They just came out with The Dark Knight like a month ago."

It was a rival "Batman" movie being directed by Robert Zemeckis. So some people were like "oh snap... Robert Zemeckis? That's kinda tight. He did Back to the Future and Forrest Gump", but the part they didn't mention was that it was being produced by Joel Schumacher... and it was practically a sequel to "Batman and Robin", but being described as "Rambo Batman".

To make matters worse... the guy they cast to play Batman was James Van Der Beek. What the...? James Van Der Beek? It seemed like a ploy to cash in on the success of "The Dark Knight' and it made me think they were going to screw over the entire franchise.

The rationalization for this dream and the entire premise apparently stemmed from my memory of James Bond. Back in 1983 apparently 2 rival James Bond movies came out due to some legal mishap. "OctoEdited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.", starring Roger Moore and "Never Say Never Again" starring Sean Connery.

Although the dream may have also been influenced by hearing about the (now sidelined) "Justice League" project which would have had a brand new person play Batman despite the fact the Nolan/Bale trilogy is not yet completed.

Point is... I had a dream that a Batman movie was coming out in a month starring James Van Der Beek as a militant Batman. Thanks for your time.


"I'm Batman"

[Moneyshot]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

Another reason why Batman decided to save Rachel instead of Dent might be in the original line he was going to say when Gordon asked him which one he would save. At Borders Books they have The Dark Knight movie script for sale, and in it when Gordon asked Batman which one he was going to save Batman simply replied, "Dent knew the risks."

I think this is a very appropriate reaction from Batman and would have been a more informative response if kept in the movie (although it may have been seen as a bit harsh towards Dent).  Batman, Gordon, and Dent had teamed up and planned together to take down the mob together as a team. They were to bear the responsibility and outcome from whatever happened. Rachel got drawn in because of her connection to Dent. So she was the innocent one.

And Batman also went against doing what's best for the greater good later in the movie. When the public was looking to gun down Mr. Reese because the Joker told them to, Batman actually followed him and saved him even though Mr. Reese was planning to tell everyone his secret identity (and it would have been an easy way out for the film makers in the next sequel by just killing off the guy who knew is identity instead of dealing with it). This was definitely not in Batman's best interest, but he looked out for the innocent person.

And I also think this all points to Batman being an "anti-hero" or "human" hero. He's not perfect and I think that is an appealing trait.

And in unrelated news it looks like Warner Bros. is going to reboot the Superman franchise. The WB pictures president told the Wall Street Journal:

"Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman..."

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

I don't think I like the sound of a "dark" Superman movie. Not every character is dark like Batman. Hopefully it just means a mature movie.

[Toine43]

All I've gotta say is you know it's a legit movie when they slip Morgan Freeman in as "wise old sidekick guy." 

Man, that guy's been in a lot of movies.

[guava_wrench]

Ok.  My problem is that the theme of "doing what's best for the greater good" contradicts what Batman did.  Batman  went to go save Rachel not Harvey.  It all worked out for the Joker because he got Harvey to turn into Two Face as a result but the whole point of the movie was lost in the process.

Batman did NOT sacrifice for the greater good.  And it made him look like a horrible super hero.

I think this flaw in the plot is overlooked because it confused people to the point where they felt that because it's a "great" movie that they shouldn't question it or that they didn't want to appear dumb for not getting it.   

Another reason why Batman decided to save Rachel instead of Dent might be in the original line he was going to say when Gordon asked him which one he would save. At Borders Books they have The Dark Knight movie script for sale, and in it when Gordon asked Batman which one he was going to save Batman simply replied, "Dent knew the risks."

I think this is a very appropriate reaction from Batman and would have been a more informative response if kept in the movie (although it may have been seen as a bit harsh towards Dent).  Batman, Gordon, and Dent had teamed up and planned together to take down the mob together as a team. They were to bear the responsibility and outcome from whatever happened. Rachel got drawn in because of her connection to Dent. So she was the innocent one.

And Batman also went against doing what's best for the greater good later in the movie. When the public was looking to gun down Mr. Reese because the Joker told them to, Batman actually followed him and saved him even though Mr. Reese was planning to tell everyone his secret identity (and it would have been an easy way out for the film makers in the next sequel by just killing off the guy who knew is identity instead of dealing with it). This was definitely not in Batman's best interest, but he looked out for the innocent person.

And I also think this all points to Batman being an "anti-hero" or "human" hero. He's not perfect and I think that is an appealing trait.

And in unrelated news it looks like Warner Bros. is going to reboot the Superman franchise. The WB pictures president told the Wall Street Journal:

"Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman..."

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

I don't think I like the sound of a "dark" Superman movie. Not every character is dark like Batman. Hopefully it just means a mature movie.

The previous Superman movie was originally planned to be darker and they considered Nicolas Cage for the lead. Then, for some reason, they went with the boring rehash version.

[LB3533]

Hey I remember the dark brooding Superman.....it was Superman 3 with Richard Pryor?

It wasn't nearly has good as Superman or Superman 2.

I would say Superman Returns was better than Superman 3.

Superman 3 was entertaining and not awful like Superman 4.