And I was disappointed and surprised that ** spoiler omitted **
Two-Face has always been a difficult villain to pin down, often because of nature of conflicted duality and that insidious coin he carries with him. Still Eckhart pulled him off and did a solid portrayal of the villain.
JnW
I am going t obe in minority here and say that it was not awesome, no where near as good as Batman Begins. Yes Heath Ledger was fantastic as The Joker, stealing the show with his performance but it was a long film that felt long. The continuing crises didn't build in intensity, it was just more stuff, and I while I like the 'team' that this version of Batman has (Fox, Gordon, Alfred) I want more Batman in my Batman movie. Iron Man was the much better movie (IMHO).
Cheers
Mark
|
I am going t obe in minority here and say that it was not awesome, no where near as good as Batman Begins. Yes Heath Ledger was fantastic as The Joker, stealing the show with his performance but it was a long film that felt long. The continuing crises didn't build in intensity, it was just more stuff, and I while I like the 'team' that this version of Batman has (Fox, Gordon, Alfred) I want more Batman in my Batman movie. Iron Man was the much better movie (IMHO).
Cheers
Mark
Incidentally, I just rewatched the Burton Batman tonight. While not as effective psychologically as Nolan's (and certainly not technologically as sophisticated) it comes off as a more watchable movie.
Oh, and Jack Nicholson's joy-buzzer gag is just as good as the pencil trick. Seriously, with the script and direction he was given (and the era the movie was made in, certainly not like today's grim-and-gritty fascination), Nicholson's Joker is amazingly psychotic. In fact, I would probably hazard he kills more people than Ledger's - and is a little bit creepier doing it. I love his line about being "the first fully-functioning homicidal artist". Ledger's Joker seems a bit too lucid sometimes. Certainly effective in the new Batman, but I like Nicholson better as a Joker.
Seriously, with the script and direction he was given (and the era the movie was made in, certainly not like today's grim-and-gritty fascination), Nicholson's Joker is amazingly psychotic. In fact, I would probably hazard he kills more people than Ledger's - and is a little bit creepier doing it. I love his line about being "the first fully-functioning homicidal artist". Ledger's Joker seems a bit too lucid sometimes. Certainly effective in the new Batman, but I like Nicholson better as a Joker.
It's apples and oranges, really. Nicholson was Joker the showman, commanding the attention (and terror) of an entire city, out of a sociopathic need to be accepted by and in control of everyone. Nicholson's Joker is all about bombast and mass communication, and all eyes on him.
Ledger was Joker the very personal, in-your-face psychopath. His terror was most believable and most disturbing when it was intimate. Joker & Rachel, Joker & Harvey, Joker & Batman - all face-to-face confrontations, like he wanted to get in their head and rattle things around in there.
Jack's Joker will kill you quickly and make it gruesomely funny, but Heath's Joker will make it slow and give you a custom personal mindf-ck while he's at it. Also, I think there's something visceral and primitive-terror about using a knife versus a gun as a weapon.
And its deliberate on Nolan's part. He wants you to think about things as you're watching the movie. He's trying to do something a little more ambitious with The Dark Knight than most other superhero movies aspire too. He wants you to think about the ride rather than simply going along with it. Or perhaps he wants you to do both. In any case, he's damn close to succeeding.
I need to see this again.
I love Burton's "Batman", but "Dark Knight" certainly makes me think a lot more. This is going to be one helluva dense DVD - I'd like to see a directors' & actors' commentary on this one. And it's a damn shame Heath Ledger isn't around to give his POV - this is a performance most actors aspire to give.
|
|
It's apples and oranges, really. Nicholson was Joker the showman, commanding the attention (and terror) of an entire city, out of a sociopathic need to be accepted by and in control of everyone. Nicholson's Joker is all about bombast and mass communication, and all eyes on him.
Ledger was Joker the very personal, in-your-face psychopath. His terror was most believable and most disturbing when it was intimate. Joker & Rachel, Joker & Harvey, Joker & Batman - all face-to-face confrontations, like he wanted to get in their head and rattle things around in there.
You hit the nail on the head, I think, with the differences between the two performances. Each one represents a portion of the Joker's extremely twisted and bent personality. Keeping Batman guessing about which Joker will show up is often key to how he keeps one step ahead.
On another point, I did notice that some of Joker's motivation is lifted directly from the classic Batman: The Killing Joke, where Jokers is intent on showing that everyone is just like him - one bad day away from going crazy. If anyone has never read it, I suggest checking it out.
|
|
It's apples and oranges, really. Nicholson was Joker the showman, commanding the attention (and terror) of an entire city, out of a sociopathic need to be accepted by and in control of everyone. Nicholson's Joker is all about bombast and mass communication, and all eyes on him.
Ledger was Joker the very personal, in-your-face psychopath. His terror was most believable and most disturbing when it was intimate. Joker & Rachel, Joker & Harvey, Joker & Batman - all face-to-face confrontations, like he wanted to get in their head and rattle things around in there.
You hit the nail on the head, I think, with the differences between the two performances. Each one represents a portion of the Joker's extremely twisted and bent personality. Keeping Batman guessing about which Joker will show up is often key to how he keeps one step ahead.
On another point, I did notice that some of Joker's motivation is lifted directly from the classic Batman: The Killing Joke, where Jokers is intent on showing that everyone is just like him - one bad day away from going crazy. If anyone has never read it, I suggest checking it out.
Very succinct and accurate points, both of you, on the two portrayals. I personally enjoy Jack better than Heath, but I should have mentioned that my choice does not take anything away from Heath's from your perspective (I still don't think it is perfect, but it is very good, and definitely the best performance in the movie, which says a lot).
I think the best place for comparison would be the TV Spots that both Jokers put out: Jack's is brutally funny, full of puns, sight gags, irony, and sarcasm. Heath's is completely dark, serious, and deadly. The former presents the Joker as a homicidal maniac with a twisted sense of humour; the latter presents him with some humour, but emphasizes his very effective homicidal nature. Like I said in my original post, some of this has to do with the current trends in film and society.
I have also heard discussion from friends and family about the Killing Joke and its influence on the movie, so it might be more than speculation. Has anyone heard anything from Nolan on this?
Nolan was inspired by it, and actually gave a copy to Heath Ledger when he signed on, but Heath never read it because he didn't want it influencing how he got into character. But, yeah, it was definitely on Nolan's mind when he did this movie.
Which is really no surprise because he also drew on Year One as an inspiration for Batman Begins. And I've never heard it cited, but the "origin" of the Batmobile/Tumbler and Batman's equipment is straight out of Detective Comics #0 back during Zero Hour from the 90s.
I think many immature people might miss the point of the movie, especially the boat scene, and just be seduced by the Joker's personality and fallacious arguments about "rules" and "society".
Of course people will be seduced by the ‘dark side’. Just look at the popularity of ninjas and pirates.
For me, Heath’s performance made the Joker real. I enjoyed the 1986 Batman and Nicholson’s Joker, but it was over the top.
I guess it is like comparing Golden Age to Iron Age.
|
|
I think many immature people might miss the point of the movie, especially the boat scene, and just be seduced by the Joker's personality and fallacious arguments about "rules" and "society".Of course people will be seduced by the ‘dark side’. Just look at the popularity of ninjas and pirates.
For me, Heath’s performance made the Joker real. I enjoyed the 1986 Batman and Nicholson’s Joker, but it was over the top.
I guess it is like comparing Golden Age to Iron Age.
That's not entirely true. Everyone knows that pirates are the dark side. Ninjas are just lame.
|
On another point, I did notice that some of Joker's motivation is lifted directly from the classic Batman: The Killing Joke, where Jokers is intent on showing that everyone is just like him - one bad day away from going crazy. If anyone has never read it, I suggest checking it out.
That was my thought exactly especially
From a certain point of view, Burton's "Batman" was closer to "The Killing Joke": stylised to the 1940's; elongated Batmobile; acid-bath orgin to The Joker. Nicholson's murdering buzzers and buttonhole flowers were also more Killing-Jokey than a pencil in the eye.
Still, Ledger's Joker, with his just-sane-enough-speeches-to-make-you-think was more appealing to me. I think it comes down to fantastic Joker in an average Batman movie.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
And as for next villian... can anyone say Clayface? I'd love to see a serious take on him.
The best idea I've heard so far, in my humble opinion, is for a combo of Black Mask and Catwoman. I think that could work well. Black Mask would be the main villain, with Catwoman initially going against both him and Batman. Then, as htings got more intense, Catwoman and Batman would do the team-up thing to take down Black Mask.
Either way, I hope they continue keeping away from the super-powered angle - its worked so far. Although, I've heard the rumor of John Malkovich as a possibility for Mr. Freeze, and that might be really cool.
That's not entirely true. Everyone knows that pirates are the dark side. Ninjas are just lame.
The success of any mission is inversely proportional to the number of ninjas involved.
That's right. As any one, fool or not, should know, one ninja is all it ever takes.
Loved this movie. Loved it.
|
I liked it a lot, Heath was great as the Joker and I despise that character typically. I loved the strange accent he came up with and the little mannerisms like licking his lips repeatedly and his shoddy makeup job.
The movie was a bit long for me and I would have preferred that the Two-Face storyline would have spilled over into the next one. Maybe the movie would have ended with Dent's bad eye opening as he came out of a coma or something but then again Dent's fall from grace seemed a big part of Joker's plan...
For the next movie, I'd love to see a lesser used villain like Maxie Zeus, The Ventriloquist or The Mad Hatter. Or at least have Killer Croc or maybe Firefly as a hired hand.
I think the Batman movies need to take a page from the James Bond franschise and begin each movie with a sequence featuring Batman taking on a B-level foe, before the opening credits. Then jump into the main action.
For example, the movie opens with Batman taking on Killer Croc, then the main credits, then a movie where
Good movie. I wasn't expecting one certain part of the movie, but it did make a lot of sense in context for what happened.
just a little something:
After watching "Batman: Gotham Knight":
Killer Croc was already taken care off.
Really enjoyed the film. It may not have been the most fast or intense superhero film but I had no problem with that as generally I find those sort of films take it too far go ridiculously over the top with the action and I lose interest.
As for the joker, best I've seen (not detracting from Jack Nicholson). It's such a shame about Heath Ledger as I think the joker was probably being set up as a recurring villain and I don't think they'll try and replace Heath (not for a long time). Still great film.
I liked the first two (Keaton) flicks a lot, and also enjoyed the two Nolan movies. Seems like a good director is worth more than a script.
For the Joker, seemed like they got Jack Nicholson specifically so they wouldn't end up with some bozo imitating Cesar Romero (no detraction from Jack, but after all, Jack Nicholson usually plays Jack Nicholson). For "Dark Knight," then, the challenge was to find someone who wouldn't imitate Nicholson. Ledger fulfilled that admirably.
EDIT: Let me vote "no" for another Jim Carrey riddler. Jim Carrey always plays Jim Carrey, and I have no desire to sit through another "Riddler: Pet Detective" movie! Hmmm... what about John Cusack, get kind of a studious-geek-gone-bad Riddler? Or, of course, Kevin Spacey would be perfect for a more traditional Riddler... naw, too obvious. That would be like getting Angelina Jolie to be the Catwoman... oops! (Zoe Bell would be my choice.)
Aaron Eckhart = fantastic casting.
Agreed. Nolan and Ledger and Caine and Freeman all seemed exactly correct for their roles as well. A grand slam all around.
Jim Carrey always plays Jim Carrey, and I have no desire to sit through another "Riddler: Pet Detective" movie!
Agreed. Carey has about the same range as John Wayne.
I liked the first two (Keaton) flicks a lot, and also enjoyed the two Nolan movies. Seems like a good director is worth more than a script.
For the Joker, seemed like they got Jack Nicholson specifically so they wouldn't end up with some bozo imitating Cesar Romero (no detraction from Jack, but after all, Jack Nicholson usually plays Jack Nicholson). For "Dark Knight," then, the challenge was to find someone who wouldn't imitate Nicholson. Ledger fulfilled that admirably. ** spoiler omitted **
EDIT: Let me vote "no" for another Jim Carrey riddler. Jim Carrey always plays Jim Carrey, and I have no desire to sit through another "Riddler: Pet Detective" movie! Hmmm... what about John Cusack, get kind of a studious-geek-gone-bad Riddler? Or, of course, Kevin Spacey would be perfect for a more traditional Riddler... naw, too obvious. That would be like getting Angelina Jolie to be the Catwoman... oops! (Zoe Bell would be my choice.)
I disagree about:
Even if Joker never appears again (and I suspect he won't until the next "franchise reset"), Joker pretty clearly left his mark, and set up his relationship with Batman in his little speech at the end of their fight when Batman had him dangling from the cable.
Jim Carrey always plays Jim Carrey, and I have no desire to sit through another "Riddler: Pet Detective" movie!Agreed. Carey has about the same range as John Wayne.
Goddang it you little hippie! Don't you go insulting The Duke like that. The man was a great American and a great actor. Heck, he won a g*+&#@n Best Actor Oscar. Did that little punk Carey ever do that?
I disagree about:** spoiler omitted **
The man was a great American…
I can not debate that since I know very little regarding his personal life.
… and a great actor.
He played himself very well…in every role. I do not debate that he was charismatic or that he was an American icon. I am merely questioning his range.
Heck, he won a g~~+&&n Best Actor Oscar. Did that little punk Carey ever do that?
So the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences disagree with me. Not the first time. I can live with that.
Carey is a hack actor who is funny for the first 5 minutes then quickly degenerates into juvenile annoyance (not unlike myself). I will not be the least surprised when he does when an Oscar for playing a more serious role (Golden Globes do not count).
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
I disagree about:** spoiler omitted **
Good point. I suppose we'll see what happens with the next movie...since I'm assuming they'll make one. You never know though since this one hasn't done so well in the box office. ;)
Saw it today. I still think I prefer the Burton movies ("Hey, Chris Nolan: why so serious?"). That said, if Nolan could do for Scarface (AKA the Ventriloquist) what he did for the Joker, I think that would be my perfect Batman movie.
Saw it today. I still think I prefer the Burton movies ("Hey, Chris Nolan: why so serious?"). That said, if Nolan could do for Scarface (AKA the Ventriloquist) what he did for the Joker, I think that would be my perfect Batman movie.
I used to have a lot of love for the Burton movies, but in retrospect, I realized that a lot of it had to do with goodwill for Burton due to other movies, and part of it had to do with actually seeing Batman treated as a serious property and not a campy joke in mass media (I know he hadn't been that way in the comics for a long, long time at that point).
Over time though, I really hated the idea that Bruce's aversion to killing never really came up (and was kind of ignored in a few places), that Joker was tacked onto Batman's origin, and that while the circumstances of Joker's origin were the same, that we saw way too much of him pre Joker. And the fact that he obviously died at the movie's end bugged me too, but given the revamp of his origin and the lack of Batman's aversion to killing, there was no reason for Joker to survive this movie, unfortunately.
And while a lot of people complain about the Joel Schumacher movies as being the downfall of the franchise, Batman Returns was really just a wacked out Burton movie that Batman happened to wander into, at least to my way of thinking. However, Batman Returns still gets points over the later movies in my book for having the trademark dark humor of Burton and not the painfully inane Arnold puns and one liners.
Oh, and no matter how distinguished a career he may have had, Pat Hingle had no good reason to ever be Gordon. I would have liked to have seen a Burton-Billy Dee Williams Two-Face though . . .
|
|
I think that I would like to see the Mad Hatter as the villian for the next movie. He's a lot like Scarecrow, a second string villian that never got any respect. I gained a greater appreciation of him when I was playing in a campaign using the old Marvel system set in a shared Marvel/DC universe. We were investigating a series of bank robberies where the robbers would do crazy things and then have no memory of it later. Anyway we eventually caught up with the mastermind and it was Mad Hatter. He actually turned our group against each other and had us battle in a gladiator arena. It was one of the most memorable adventures we ever had.
I enjoyed Dark Knight, but the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that the moral of the movie was the same as Team America:
But without the irony.
|
|
I think that I would like to see the Mad Hatter as the villian for the next movie. He's a lot like Scarecrow, a second string villian that never got any respect. I gained a greater appreciation of him when I was playing in a campaign using the old Marvel system set in a shared Marvel/DC universe. We were investigating a series of bank robberies where the robbers would do crazy things and then have no memory of it later. Anyway we eventually caught up with the mastermind and it was Mad Hatter. He actually turned our group against each other and had us battle in a gladiator arena. It was one of the most memorable adventures we ever had.
Mad Hatter might be interesting as a villain, but not as a main one. Still, his whole deal was that "Alice in Wonderland" thing and I've read that some folks freak out and associate him with an unhealthy infatuation with children. Warner might not want that kind of attention for their movie.
Named Batman villains in the Bale franchise are like Sith: always two, no more, no less: one master, one apprentice. In "Begins," we have Liam Neeson as the BBEG, and Scarecrow as something of a minion. In "Dark Knight," it's Joker and
|
|
Mad Hatter might be interesting as a villain, but not as a main one. Still, his whole deal was that "Alice in Wonderland" thing and I've read that some folks freak out and associate him with an unhealthy infatuation with children. Warner might not want that kind of attention for their movie.
Well in our campaign the Judge did away with the whole Alice in Wonderland fetish and made his cards into a microchip which could be placed behind the ear and then could control minds that way. Besides some people used to claim that Batman had an unhealthy infatuation with kids as well.
|
|
Well in our campaign the Judge did away with the whole Alice in Wonderland fetish and made his cards into a microchip which could be placed behind the ear and then could control minds that way. Besides some people used to claim that Batman had an unhealthy infatuation with kids as well.
Mad Hatter might be interesting as a villain, but not as a main one. Still, his whole deal was that "Alice in Wonderland" thing and I've read that some folks freak out and associate him with an unhealthy infatuation with children. Warner might not want that kind of attention for their movie.
And then All Star Batman and Robin proved them right.
also, my vote goes to the mad hatter. either in his "toned down" psychotic mind control fantasy based villian or as his "Arkham Asylum" british pedophile carrollian look. either one is creepy and i think would work well in the dark tone of the new franchise, albeit as a second string villain to one that poses more of a direct threat. possibly a new penguin, Ras Al'Ghoul again, or maybe even Zeus. I can see an interesting counterpoint between catwoman and the mad hatter. one offers him a fantasy of a normal life and the other tempts him to stay in his current one. I wouldn't mind watching that.
I've also preferred the more "normal" villains like holiday or calender man. dark and psychotic, but otherwise just normal serial killers. Man-Bat also sort of fits the dark themes. especially now that
Maybe Man-Bat and Cat-Woman? With a third, un-connected baddy doing the mob thing.
|
|
I've also preferred the more "normal" villains like holiday or calender man. dark and psychotic, but otherwise just normal serial killers.
I like those small-time guys too, (Clock King, Film-Freak, Calendar Man, Cluemaster...) and I'd like to see them in a small role like the Scarecrow had in Dark Knight. A bank robbery or some other exciting scheme that Batman can break up in the opening few minutes.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I finally saw the movie last night and had to add my voice that it was amazing. A few smaller things I really liked that I haven't seen mentioned were the music when the joker had some of his long speeches that sounded somewhat like a tornado siren in the backgroun was very cool and did a great job setting me on edge.
I also loved the actors in some of the smaller rolls, notably Eric Roberts as Maroni and William Fichner as the bank manager at the beginning. It was also cool that the mayor was played by the same actor that's one of the Others in Lost - it bugged me every time I saw him that he looked so familar but I couldn't figure out from where.
I really enjoyed the Dark Knight. Bane is the obvious choice for next villain.
|
|
Bane is the obvious choice for next villain.
I disagree. The character of Bane grew directly out of a previously well-received Batman story - "Venom" from Legends of the Dark Knight. It provided the origins of the drug itself, Batman's history with the drug, and an intro to the island nation of Santa Prisca. Without that background, Bane just doesn't seem to me to work as well.
Besides, with the Venom drug, Bane was more of an "enhanced" villain, and it seems they've been shying away from those types, or ones iwth outright super powers. That formula has worked well so far, so they might want to stick with it.
Here's the newest guesses for the next villains.
Finally saw DK this week. Loved it.
only one minor thing
other than that, I think this one deserves about 90% of the coverage/praise its getting.