The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[laudanum09]

I would argue that 300 for to 100 against is more than enough legitimacy add his own rationalization to that and I still say that man would have pressed the button if this was real life and not a contrived fiction. I can see an argument about the ramp up, but I still don't buy it.

i dont think there was any destiny to his actions. he decided against it, for whatever reasons, whether he saw good in his heart or he was too chicken***** to do it. it doesn't matter whether it serves batman's moral point imo, in the context of the film maybe, but from another perspective i think that, if we're bringing it into 'the real world' then we really can't say whether someone would have pushed the button, just as we can't really say whether both detonators will be thrown off. neither really proves anything universal about good or evil and human nature, it just means that this one time, these people decided not to blow each other to kingdom come. battle is won, not the war. some shred of this abstract thing 'good' showed through some of the citizens when things were at their darkest. theres some dialectic of the two. choice is frail and they made theirs without knowing the consequences. they deduced that the other boat had yet to make up their minds but in the end they had no idea what was going to happen to them but acted regardless and they chose in a similar way that batman does in the end.


somehow they acted against their own egoism and sense of self-preservation. the milgrim experiment might show that in many cases people would push the button, but its not universally accurate. just as with the milgrim experiments, some will absolutely refuse, just as some will readily blow it all to hell. its not clear cut.

 

[wootbaby]

No he doesn't, he's just like everyone else on the boat, unwilling to take responsibility. He does nothing because he can't make the choice, whereas the prisoner takes responsibility and chooses for everyone. You can easily argue whether the Joker still won despite no explosion, it certainly didn't turn out that way because of how Batman perceives it, the people being too good

We dont know his rationale. You can look at it like that but the fact is even in inaction he's making a choice. The fact is everyone did want him to press the button and would have absolved him for it. In the end it was the blame he would put on himself that prevented him from pushing the button. It's not true that he cant make a choice, he strongly advocates a choice. It's just that when he is given the responsibility, he changes.

Joker won the battle lost the war.

 

[Superhobo]

I would have your back 100% if they cut Gordon's speech out of the ending. But he's talking to his kid and the kid is obviously supposed to represent the audience. So they treat us like children and justify what is, to me, an abhorrent action. That bothers me a lot.

I think you've simplified the ending speech a bit - it's one of the best scenes in the film, I thought.

 

[Sandman138]

He did win because he foiled Joker's plan and now that Harvey is dead he is more incorruptable and more of a symbol than he ever was in life. Did you watch the movie dude? What do the big black words on your ticket stub say? Does it say Mama Mia? Because if so you were in the wrong cinema. The movie says 100x that the people themselves must rise up and save the city. Batman putting away 5 guys a night of Dent locking up 500 is ONLY A BEGINNING as the Joker himself says. They're symbols, they're not going to clean up the city by themselves no matter what they personally do, their ultimate utility is as symbols to the city.

How incorruptable is he going to be when either the Joker, Rameriz, or any of the other people that know what happened speak out? Now not only is that symbol (like all symbols by the way) revealed to be a lie, but so is EVERY other symbol. Batman is either a cop killer or a liar. The police commisioner obstructs justice. How do you think those "weak pathetic idiots" are going to react? But the Joker didn't win in the short term and that's all that matters? Please.

so you're under the impression that whoever Batman apprehends before Dent dies it's by the scripture of metropolitan search and seizure laws? Interesting... so let's get this straight. you sat in the theater (it wasn't Mama Mia) and you see these beat and bloodied bodies, tied up together by Batman waiting for the cops. some for drug dealing/murder, others for simply vigilantism, all indiscriminately tied together and you're like, yeah that's realistic. the police DEFINITELY will be able to prosecute these guys though no police officers witnessed or apprehended them. looks kosher. furthermore you think that people of Gotham are willing to accept this because Batman is UNIVERSALLY VIEWED AS A NICE GUY AND TRUSTWORTHY? or is it that Batman has coerced the men themselves into either self-incrimination or leaves some manner of incontrovertible evidence incriminating them (whatever that may be?) half the city and half the police force already hated Batman and wont be surprised when they hear that he killed people but yeah you're right they just took Batman's word for it, because he's a nice guy

You don't see the difference between a man who takes very extreme actions and a confessed COP KILLER? He was already having a hard enough time, he just made it impossible.

Great. If you were watching this movie and not Mama Mia, you would have seen explicitly expressed a million times that the public IS too stupid and weak to handle it. I mean guys shooting at Reese on the Joker's commands, they certainly dont sound stupid and weak and easily manipulated. For no logical rationale whatsoever, I'll just go ahead and dispute and disagree with the KEY establishing characteristic of a major character in the movie (Gotham City) without any justification. Sure the movie explicitly shows Gotham cant handle Harvey's death but I think I'll just go ahead and think they can. THAT'S THE KIND OF BALLS TO THE WALL GUY I AM. I also think Batman's suit was Orange, not black. And his name was Ed Fluffers? Why" just because. I dont care about how facts are presented in movies... I'm cool like that, I can just simply choose to ignore stuff for no reason, makes me enjoy it more

But they didn't blow eachother up, did they? But they're supposed to be weak and stupid. But they didn't blow each other up when it was convienient. They are smart and ethical when Nolan wants them to be but they are stupid pathetic idiots who need to be controlled and stripped of their humanity when Nolan wants it. Which is it?

YEAH. This argument makes sense! They came to their decisions independently of each other but it's logical for me to say I can accept 1 but not BOTH as if they're somehow linked and one precludes the other. I'm smart.

It's a question of odds. I don't believe that they both independently would come to that same conclusion.

Ecspecially because the point is when he said that it was as part of the mob. But when he held the button in his hands and had the responsibility of it things changed. If you've ever been a captain of a team, had little brothers/sisters to take care of. Had kids or actually had anyone really count on you you'd understand. If you dont, you've never had any sort of real responsibility in your life. You will cite psychology down below (albeit with a total lack of mastery) so understand this: this is precisely the reason if you shout into a mob "someone call and ambulance" no one moves but if you make eye contact and tell a specific person "YOU call an ambulance" they never refuse.

Except that this guy was the man who INCITED the mob if I recall.

As a piece of advice, it's not 2002... no one should be confused and going to wikipedia as a reference for clinical psychology. Sounds like someone took psych 101 but didn't go to any classes. Early class huh? Maybe it met at 9:00 and you never saw the crack of noon?

Nice straw man. I'd like to say I'm above calling you a classless **** with **** for brains, but obviously I'm not.

The ferry scene was NOTHING like the Milgram experiments. In fact they are pretty much the diametric opposite. The two primary conditions of Milgram were 1)they would be executed solely on the orders of AUTHORITY without ANY other rationale or justification (these are bad people, they deserve shocks etc) 2)the test subjects would not see the consquences of their actions. A 3rd but strong corollary is the guarantee that NO HARM would in fact come to the victims despite whatever they might hear... as evidenced by the fact that the testers themselves were subject to the shock and that all stopped when it was manifest that someone could be hurt (heart condition)

In short it was an UNCOUPLING of responsibility for actions. Joker's ferry was the opposite. FORCING people to take responsibility for extremely cruel deeds (and living with them).

There was still a responsibility, it was to save face. People felt a responsibility to authority. That was with minimal stakes involved. When people's lives are on the line? You really think that people wouldn't

Further the 2 primary conditions of the Milgram experiements are not only unmet but CONTRADICTORY to the ferries. 1)Joker is not an authority so there is ZERO weight of authority.

He has absolute authority. He can kill them all if they don't follow his rules.

The ENTIRETY of the motivation is the logical RATIONALE of not dying themselves (and whatever else.. taking care of their children etc). It's ALL about justification. OPPOSITE of Milgram 2)The people themselves would have to WITNESS their deed and live with it. If you're psych boy you know that this is an important distinction. It's why people are able to eat meat but not slaughter a cow personally. Again totally different from what you said, the way the Milgram experiment was set up was PRECISELY to circumvent this human moral obstacle. In contrast the purpose of the Joker was to make people CONFRONT it. The Joker's whole point was that these people would have to deliberately and consciously make on their own the decision to kill others. And NOT have authority or anyone else to palm it off on.

You really think there is a difference between seeing and hearing? The people in the milgram experiment still witnessed the consequences of their actions. And people still pushed the button when their hueristics were telling them they might have killed the person on the other end of the speaker.

Nah he just didn't want to kill all those people. Speaking of psychology are you sure the chicken**** isn't you? Because there's 0 evidence of chicken**** in the movie, sounds like Projection as "a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others" (from WIKIPEDIE LIKE YOU!)

 

[laudanum09]

I would have your back 100% if they cut Gordon's speech out of the ending. But he's talking to his kid and the kid is obviously supposed to represent the audience. So they treat us like children and justify what is, to me, an abhorrent action. That bothers me a lot.

i didn't really feel like gordon was lightening it at all, watering down the situation to any degree. yes, the kid can be swapped for the audience, he's speaking to us just as much, actually more so than the kid but i dont think it signifies that we're children in need of some sort of condescending justification. he says that batman is not a hero. he is a guardian, a silent protector, a dark knight, and that he will be hunted. doesn't sound very nice to me, sounds like something that would really confuse and hurt me as a child to hear. instead of swapping him for the audience lets swap him to all of the youngsters who have never read the dark knight returns, year one, long halloween or any of the great detective or batman comics but are merely familiar with the new crappy animated show and a few films. its a big statement on batman's essence...or a large aspect of it at least, and thats the psychological ambiguity of it all. gordon's speech would have been condescending if he had lied or watered down the truth, this kid knows now that he lives in a world where the best people, the most hopeful beacons of light will be hunted, dogged and beaten, that batman's version of good must hide under a mask of darkness. things are so bad in this world that sometimes lying is actually better than the truth. that kids got a lot on his plate now.

 

[Sandman138]

But he also says that we deserve it. We deserve to be lied to. To be wire tapped. To be at the mercy of a man with a god complex who doesn't hold himself to the same standard he holds us to. But we NEED to ignore that and pretend that everything is good and murderers who seek vengeance can be perfect.

 

[melancholiac]

There will always be flaws to great movies, for TDK it would definitely be in my opinion the way they made Batman talk like a guy with a voice box. I think that was way overdone especially when he had his longest lines with the Joker in the latter stages of the movie. Other than that, the movie was really good, and developed superbly.

If you guys haven't heard the OST yet, you can get it here:
http://atouchofmelancholy.com/blog/?p=514

 

[wootbaby]

if we're bringing it into 'the real world' then we really can't say whether someone would have pushed the button, just as we can't really say whether both detonators will be thrown off. neither really proves anything universal about good or evil and human nature, it just means that this one time, these people decided not to blow each other to kingdom come.

correct. given 10 ferries how many would have blown up in Nolan's Gotham. 8 of them? 9? Nolan's point isnt that this would happen but that it could happen. and if it were how it would happen, not the back of democracy or the mob but the individual decisions of single men

In a city of 30 million how many Batmans are out there? Not copycats or glory hounds but actually a man who will forsake all else for others? The guys who stood forward as surrogates for Batman on those ferries that night are basically a statement from Nolan that one man CAN step forward make a difference, not that one man always does. It's a very realistic message... sometimes good guys can win and here's how... nowhere is there any idea that this would always happen or was destined to happen

 

[Thot]

Just saw TDK again today and my thoughts are:

Better the second time around but.....
*Bale's Bat-voice is really bad and even embarrassing at several points.
*The Bat-suit simply isn't iconic enough. Too Robocop and not enough creature of the
night! The mask looked awful in many scenes as well.
*The movie is simply too long and too ambitious for its own good.
*The Harvey/Two Face transition is rushed and ridiculous. I didn't believe for second
Dent would transform so completely and quickly. This makes the entire Gordon family
hostage scene totally unbelievable.
* The Two Face "look" is horror B-movie bad. Way over the top.
* Joker hospital explosion scene. Very entertaining but completely unbelievable.
* "Why so serious?" indeed. The movie virtually collapses under the immense weight of
its own dead-seriousness.
* The final "ferry situation" seemed tacked on for effect. Also didn't buy that at least a
few of the inmates wouldn't jump at that detonator! Come on, seriously!

Good points;

Great action and stunts! Top notch and some of the best ever!
Ledger's Joker is stunning, disturbing, magnetic and humorously twisted! One of the most interesting and entertaining villains in cinematic history.
No one sucked! Bale, Caine, Freeman, Oldman, all solid. Missed Katie Holmes though. MG just didn't look like a woman that two GQ dudes would go ga-ga over. Sorry.
Great score and cinematography as well.

Overall an entertaining film but not really the kind of Batman film I was anticipating. Here's hoping the next one lightens things up a bit, gives us back Wayne Manor and the Batcave (hopefully a better suit design) and maybe even a new love interest? Dare I say it.......Catwoman? "So let it be written, so let it be done!"

7.5 or maybe 8/10.

 

[laudanum09]

He did win because he foiled Joker's plan and now that Harvey is dead he is more incorruptable and more of a symbol than he ever was in life. Did you watch the movie dude? What do the big black words on your ticket stub say? Does it say Mama Mia? Because if so you were in the wrong cinema. The movie says 100x that the people themselves must rise up and save the city. Batman putting away 5 guys a night of Dent locking up 500 is ONLY A BEGINNING as the Joker himself says. They're symbols, they're not going to clean up the city by themselves no matter what they personally do, their ultimate utility is as symbols to the city.

i dont want the city to rise up and prevail. thats ridiculous. thats borderline spiderman 1 with the friggin new yorkers (we got the same level of cheese IMO during dent's arrest, worst scene in the film imo, but at least the context is absolutely different. they're desperate, confused and angry, not some black/white together or in chaos. its a mix of both.

and yeah now batman is a symbol but only for those who know the truth. batman will become a killer in the eyes of a city already feeling ambiguous about him. his symbolism imo is now for us, for those watching in on the gotham universe. its really been that way a good deal for batman. i dont really consider any more contemporary situations where batman is either universally loved or hated, its ambiguous. he has some men who know him and his truth, some who think he's a giant bat. we know who he is. a man willing to turn himself into gotham's human sewage system. who must because of the fact that he is responsible to some extent for the chaos wrought on the city in tdk. batman stand for more, but paradoxically some must think of him as the exact opposite. him being seen as a villain is the condition for his heroism. to me that is beautiful, masterful, and like some have mentioned, with the same epic proportions as sophie's choice.

Great. If you were watching this movie and not Mama Mia, you would have seen explicitly expressed a million times that the public IS too stupid and weak to handle it. I mean guys shooting at Reese on the Joker's commands, they certainly dont sound stupid and weak and easily manipulated. For no logical rationale whatsoever, I'll just go ahead and dispute and disagree with the KEY establishing characteristic of a major character in the movie (Gotham City) without any justification. Sure the movie explicitly shows Gotham cant handle Harvey's death but I think I'll just go ahead and think they can. THAT'S THE KIND OF BALLS TO THE WALL GUY I AM. I also think Batman's suit was Orange, not black. And his name was Ed Fluffers? Why" just because. I dont care about how facts are presented in movies... I'm cool like that, I can just simply choose to ignore stuff for no reason, makes me enjoy it more


YEAH. This argument makes sense! They came to their decisions independently of each other but it's logical for me to say I can accept 1 but not BOTH as if they're somehow linked and one precludes the other. I'm smart.


Ecspecially because the point is when he said that it was as part of the mob. But when he held the button in his hands and had the responsibility of it things changed. If you've ever been a captain of a team, had little brothers/sisters to take care of. Had kids or actually had anyone really count on you you'd understand. If you dont, you've never had any sort of real responsibility in your life. You will cite psychology down below (albeit with a total lack of mastery) so understand this: this is precisely the reason if you shout into a mob "someone call and ambulance" no one moves but if you make eye contact and tell a specific person "YOU call an ambulance" they never refuse.


As a piece of advice, it's not 2002... no one should be confused and going to wikipedia as a reference for clinical psychology. Sounds like someone took psych 101 but didn't go to any classes. Early class huh? Maybe it met at 9:00 and you never saw the crack of noon?


The ferry scene was NOTHING like the Milgram experiments. In fact they are pretty much the diametric opposite. The two primary conditions of Milgram were 1)they would be executed solely on the orders of AUTHORITY without ANY other rationale or justification (these are bad people, they deserve shocks etc) 2)the test subjects would not see the consquences of their actions. A 3rd but strong corollary is the guarantee that NO HARM would in fact come to the victims despite whatever they might hear... as evidenced by the fact that the testers themselves were subject to the shock and that all stopped when it was manifest that someone could be hurt (heart condition)

In short it was an UNCOUPLING of responsibility for actions. Joker's ferry was the opposite. FORCING people to take responsibility for extremely cruel deeds (and living with them).

Further the 2 primary conditions of the Milgram experiements are not only unmet but CONTRADICTORY to the ferries. 1)Joker is not an authority so there is ZERO weight of authority. The ENTIRETY of the motivation is the logical RATIONALE of not dying themselves (and whatever else.. taking care of their children etc). It's ALL about justification. OPPOSITE of Milgram 2)The people themselves would have to WITNESS their deed and live with it. If you're psych boy you know that this is an important distinction. It's why people are able to eat meat but not slaughter a cow personally. Again totally different from what you said, the way the Milgram experiment was set up was PRECISELY to circumvent this human moral obstacle. In contrast the purpose of the Joker was to make people CONFRONT it. The Joker's whole point was that these people would have to deliberately and consciously make on their own the decision to kill others. And NOT have authority or anyone else to palm it off on.

my you're vicious but this is dead on. im sure the joker would like the milgram experiments in taht it would reinforce his belief in the ultimate ugliness of us all, but his own experiment was different. he would have surely loved the milgrim because it shows how easily people submit to supposed 'scientific legitimacy' and authority. people ARE weak minded, but people are also incredibly strong minded as well as a continuum of subtle degrees in between. the boat experiment was much more in line with joker rather consistent philosophy throughout the film, that when the chips are down people will eat each other. i think joker's point might work better with an analogy to the donner party, but the really f-ed up thing that makes the joker wrong in my book, is that even when people don't submit, when they don't follow his universal belief in evil (and similarly refuse the milgrim experiment or would rather starve than eat another to live, as if this hasn't happened!) he forces them to anyways!!! Otherwise I actually sort of like his philosophy.

batman won, sort of. the business guy and the crook didn't do it. but that doesn't mean there wasn't someone on taht boat that COULD have. angels wont come down one day and distribute good. it must be fought for, forever, because there will always be an exception to the rule, there will always be a 'joker in the deck.' hence, batman will live on, forever, just as the joker should, if not a really really long f-ing time. not only because we love him so, but because of within his own universe, he cant ever retire, at least the batman can't, not with what he's started.

 

[The Battousai]

But he also says that we deserve it.

Deserve what, specifically??

We deserve to be lied to.

The only lying done is in regards to what Harvey was after he became Two-Face.

You're generalizing far too much here.

To be wire tapped.

He used the sonar to simply find the Joker - ending up using it to prevent hostages from being attacked by the SWAT.

There's a big difference between finding the source of a single phone and listening in on the conversations of every citizen in Gotham.

To be at the mercy of a man with a god complex

So you didn't watch the film.

who doesn't hold himself to the same standard he holds us to.

It would help if you explain this a bit.

But we NEED to ignore that and pretend that everything is good

Everything? No. People simply need the hope Harvey Dent gave them - the hope that justice can rightly be served in a city that's ripe with corruption. That there are good people willing to change things for the better.

If what he did became public knowledge, their hope would greatly diminish - especially if they don't know the whole story (which would most likely be the case).

and murderers who seek vengeance can be perfect.

He never says that vengeful murderers can be perfect. Now you're making stuff up

 

[wootbaby]

How incorruptable is he going to be when either the Joker, Rameriz, or any of the other people that know what happened speak out? Now not only is that symbol (like all symbols by the way) revealed to be a lie, but so is EVERY other symbol. Batman is either a cop killer or a liar. The police commisioner obstructs justice. How do you think those "weak pathetic idiots" are going to react? But the Joker didn't win in the short term and that's all that matters? Please.

so you finally see after 10000 words what everyone else saw simply watching the movie. that Joker didn't win and Batman won. Batman and Gordon have given Gotham the short reprieve they need. eventually when the city can handle it, it will know. some will accept it, some will not. some will accept Batman even while he's blamed for this, some will not. but the city wont tear itself up and it's headed in the right direction thanks to Batman WINNING and Joker LOSING. but but but... What if Ben Affleck's asteroid hits Gotham what if a gust of wind comes and blows off Batman's cowl during a parade but but Quit talking irrelevancies and nonsense. At this point, are you trying to construct logical arguments or are you confusing how you feel what knowing Batman did with how the city will feel? But but but comics! Batman! comiccon this week oh oh oh noooooooooooo.... Logically the ending makes perfect sense, but what we really want to know, can you live with Batman lying and tampering with evidence???????? WE NEED TO KNOW IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU

You don't see the difference between a man who takes very extreme actions and a confessed COP KILLER? He was already having a hard enough time, he just made it impossible.

Batman's arrests and apprehensions in this movie are never based on the strength of Batman's character it's based on whatever causal evidence he can leave. The others walk, the Chechan walked but he wont be screwing around in that garage any longer. Seriously I'm trying to be nice but I cannot understand how this point could be any clearer... Batman's success isn't determined by how many guys he puts in jail (with the rare exception of supercriminals who he will ALWAYS be able to get the goods on). Batman is about 2 things: deterrence and inspiration. His reputation as a killer only adds to the 1st and they dont need him for 2 if they have Harvey. THIS IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND, what's the problem. In responding to this dont post a bunch of unrelated irrelevancies simply tell me why point 1 and point 2 are so hard for you to comprehend

But they didn't blow eachother up, did they? But they're supposed to be weak and stupid. But they didn't blow each other up when it was convienient. They are smart and ethical when Nolan wants them to be but they are stupid pathetic idiots who need to be controlled and stripped of their humanity when Nolan wants it. Which is it?

Again simple answer. People have the potential for good if properly nurtured. Simply put Nolan thinks people can be good and evil. And THAT is EXACTLY why the last scene needs to go down like it did. They need to be nudged along a path. If you watched that ferry scene and think Nolan thinks every ferry would have someone step up... buzzer

It's a question of odds. I don't believe that they both independently would come to that same conclusion.

yeah you finally have a small point here so high five for you. yeah it's unlikely that both ships would have that guy. but so what? that's what happened. the occurrence of an event of low probability happening isn't UNREALISTIC it's simply unlikely.

guy 1: My neighbor won the lottery yesterday!
guy 2: that's unrealistic, that didn't happen
guy 1: uh, yeah he did he already bought a ferrari. I saw it in his driveway
guy 2: yeah but if you think about it it's unrealistic so there's no way that happened. I'm gonna call him and QQ that there's no way that happened unrealistic unrelistdu unesiodfdf
guy 1: Wow... you're a *****e

Except that this guy was the man who INCITED the mob if I recall.

I'm wearing boxers. My eyes are green. I like pie. Sorry what? Were we discussing irrelevancies?

Nice straw man. I'd like to say I'm above calling you a classless **** with **** for brains, but obviously I'm not.

everyone cares

He has absolute authority. He can kill them all if they don't follow his rules.

link 1
link 2

You really think there is a difference between seeing and hearing? The people in the milgram experiment still witnessed the consequences of their actions. And people still pushed the button when their hueristics were telling them they might have killed the person on the other end of the speaker.

I dont think that. That's what psychologists think. Funny how the human brain works huh. You also have the results of the experiment wrong, none of the patients thought they killed anyone and they all stopped when it was clear someone was being actually harmed as opposed to startled or temporarily pained. Remember that the subjects themselves endured shocks to show it was safe and someone going "oww" or whatever could due to being startled or temporary pain. In one case a guy banged on a wall saying he was being hurt and the experiment stopped. If the test subjects had been permitted to visually monitor their victims it would have been clearer about the level of damage being inflicted/not inflicted. You're not going to get this tidbit because you skipped class and only read wikipedia but there's a reason why Milgram specifically chose auditory cues, they are more ambiguous.

But really LOL, Migram has nothing to do with anything I have no idea why you'd bump something that makes you look SUPER SMART

 

[laudanum09]

But he also says that we deserve it. We deserve to be lied to. To be wire tapped. To be at the mercy of a man with a god complex who doesn't hold himself to the same standard he holds us to. But we NEED to ignore that and pretend that everything is good and murderers who seek vengeance can be perfect.

i agree with about 90 percent of this except where your logic concludes. and he says batman is the hero gotham deserves but not right now, not as in theyre not 'ready for him yet' maybe when you grow up kind of thing, its that given the circumstances, he is something more than a hero, perhaps one day he will be redeemed in the city's eyes but not at the moment. in fact this is a huge aspect of batman's mythos.

and its as if youre asking for a batamn that wouldn't resort to wire tapping, completely unethical and illegal things, breaking bones, maiming, psychologically traumatizing people (except for killing). I'm a leftist by all means. Marx and Bakunin sitting on my shelf despite their hatred for one another. and sure wiretapping sucks but how do you keep people from doing it? and how do you stop people like the joker? let him kill people in the name of 'rights?' are we to let corporations and mad presidents run around the world starting wars, doing whatever the f*$k they want and getting rich off of it, simply because they have 'rights'?
rights are kind of silly. george carlin said it best. its imaginary. we made it up. its nice and all, but it doesnt actually exist. i can't find them anywhere at least, at least not somewhere that has to be interpreted and revised for years and years and years. if you want justice, it has to be enforced. this is why although i want a stateless egalitarian society i think that the army is fantastic. that the death penalty is a good thing in the end. this is where i go beyond batman into dent territory. but you can see why i like this version. batman's willingness to do these things keeps him from being morally and psychologically clear-cut. things are murky as hell. his actions are absolutely questionable. to put it simply, he's f-ing nuts and he's doing it for a mish-mash of reasons that in my ideal version of the character, he himself is absolutely confused with. he doesnt know whether hes fighting for justice or its simply because of one bad day, he's utterly traumatized and can't let go of what happened to him, and it is rooted in that one bad day. now rachel is dead, harvey died a villain and the entire city is now after you. thats why i love him. best 'super-hero' ever!

 

[Sandman138]

so you finally see after 10000 words what everyone else saw simply watching the movie. that Joker didn't win and Batman won. Batman and Gordon have given Gotham the short reprieve they need. eventually when the city can handle it, it will know. some will accept it, some will not. some will accept Batman even while he's blamed for this, some will not. but the city wont tear itself up and it's headed in the right direction thanks to Batman WINNING and Joker LOSING. but but but... What if Ben Affleck's asteroid hits Gotham what if a gust of wind comes and blows off Batman's cowl during a parade but but Quit talking irrelevancies and nonsense. At this point, are you trying to construct logical arguments or are you confusing how you feel what knowing Batman did with how the city will feel? But but but comics! Batman! comiccon this week oh oh oh noooooooooooo.... Logically the ending makes perfect sense, but what we really want to know, can you live with Batman lying and tampering with evidence???????? WE NEED TO KNOW IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU

Can you live with the way that we fight terror? Can you live with Guantanamo Bay? FISA? Rendition? They were obviously tryiung to draw all those allegories, which is why I can't get behind wrapping it up so neatly at the end and ignoring the consequences of the actions they took.

Batman's arrests and apprehensions in this movie are never based on the strength of Batman's character it's based on whatever causal evidence he can leave. The others walk, the Chechan walked but he wont be screwing around in that garage any longer. Seriously I'm trying to be nice but I cannot understand how this point could be any clearer... Batman's success isn't determined by how many guys he puts in jail (with the rare exception of supercriminals who he will ALWAYS be able to get the goods on). Batman is about 2 things: deterrence and inspiration. His reputation as a killer only adds to the 1st and they dont need him for 2 if they have Harvey. THIS IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND, what's the problem. In responding to this dont post a bunch of unrelated irrelevancies simply tell me why point 1 and point 2 are so hard for you to comprehend

Ok, I'll grant you this, but look what the Russian did. He helped the Joker. His actions had a consequence of creating the Joker, so how can he not see that the consequences of this action are going to be even worse? He didn't learn from his actions he perpetuated them.

Again simple answer. People have the potential for good if properly nurtured. Simply put Nolan thinks people can be good and evil. And THAT is EXACTLY why the last scene needs to go down like it did. They need to be nudged along a path. If you watched that ferry scene and think Nolan thinks every ferry would have someone step up... buzzer

That's a load. The ferry scene gave no indication of it, who exactly was "nudging" them in the right direction in that scenario? More over, even if it did, a man like Bruce Wayne has NO ****ING RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be "nudging" anybody.

yeah you finally have a small point here so high five for you. yeah it's unlikely that both ships would have that guy. but so what? that's what happened. the occurrence of an event of low probability happening isn't UNREALISTIC it's simply unlikely.

Incredibly so. To the point of being contrived. =You know what is INSANELY unrealistic though? That the entirety of the NATIONAL GUARD somehow missed that both ferries were wired with explosives.

guy 1: My neighbor won the lottery yesterday!
guy 2: that's unrealistic, that didn't happen
guy 1: uh, yeah he did he already bought a ferrari. I saw it in his driveway
guy 2: yeah but if you think about it it's unrealistic so there's no way that happened. I'm gonna call him and QQ that there's no way that happened unrealistic unrelistdu unesiodfdf
guy 1: Wow... you're a *****e

It's more like both your neighbors winning the lottery on the same day without being in on it together.

I'm wearing boxers. My eyes are green. I like pie. Sorry what? Were we discussing irrelevancies?

It's irrelevant that he got the mob to go with what he wanted and not the other way around?

everyone cares

No, but you obviously have some panties in a twist over this.

link 1

"2 a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior "

link 2

I'm gonna go ahead and say it: semantics. Authority without coercion is not authority.

I dont think that. That's what psychologists think.

I referenced the experiment as best I could without asking everybody to pay eleven dollars for the journal. I don't care what psychologists think. I care about empiracle data. And the data for the Yale experiment to the best of my knowledge is that 65 percent of a population size of 40 administered what they thought was a 450-volt shock when the example they had been given was a 45-volt shock.

Funny how the human brain works huh. You also have the results of the experiment wrong, none of the patients thought they killed anyone and they all stopped when it was clear someone was being actually harmed as opposed to startled or temporarily pained. Remember that the subjects themselves endured shocks to show it was safe and someone going "oww" or whatever could due to being startled or temporary pain.

In the final stages of the experiment, L went silent and the only sound was of the shock being administered. Again T was giving what T thought was a 450-volt shock and what T was introduced to was a 45-volt shock. Your the one who has their facts wrong.

In one case a guy banged on a wall saying he was being hurt and the experiment stopped.

That happened in every experiment once the voltage was supposedly increased to the 130 mark. L banged on the wall, said he had aheart condition and T was told by E to continue to press the button. L eventually went silent and T was still told to press the button eventually giving out what T thought was 450-volts to a silent L who T believed had a heart condition. In 65 percent of the population L banging on the wall was not enough to stop the experiment.

If the test subjects had been permitted to visually monitor their victims it would have been clearer about the level of damage being inflicted/not inflicted. You're not going to get this tidbit because you skipped class and only read wikipedia but there's a reason why Milgram specifically chose auditory cues, they are more ambiguous.

This is the one small point that you have. High five to you. I am unaware if there has been an experiment that used visual cues since Milgram. I'm not a behavioral neuroscientist, I'm studying the cognitive side. You want to look into it, I'll be more than happy to do the same.

But really LOL, Migram has nothing to do with anything I have no idea why you'd bump something that makes you look SUPER SMART

I still say it does. It wasn't to make me look smart, it was to provide some empirical data to back up why I don't buy the film's moral play.

 

[Sandman138]

i agree with about 90 percent of this except where your logic concludes. and he says batman is the hero gotham deserves but not right now, not as in theyre not 'ready for him yet' maybe when you grow up kind of thing, its that given the circumstances, he is something more than a hero, perhaps one day he will be redeemed in the city's eyes but not at the moment. in fact this is a huge aspect of batman's mythos.

I can buy this interpretation, but that is not how it came off to me and I'm obviously not the only one.

 

["V"]

Well media-bias dictates a lot of things, it looks pretty sloppy if you condemn something on one page, whilst advertising it on the next. It's basic media policy, don't knock down your sponsors etc, if a paper has been planning a massive article on the making of some film, they can't afford to discredit that article in the same issue, thus waiting for the general release to give a more rounded view.

This surely reflects badly against the integrity of the paper? That they are willing to praise something if they are paid to do so, yet will do the opposite if the money is withdrawn? It doesn't seem like they can give us an unbiased opinion if that's the case.

I had a look at one of his other reviews and Cosmo Landesman gave 'Baby Mama' three stars out of five. Does this really reflect the opinion of the intellectual readers of The Times who have Metropolis in their DVD collections?

 

[Keyser Soze]

You're obviously of a different school of thought than myself. Objectivity does exist in the world, how much you can apply to different things is interesting.

I'm not ashamed of films I've watched as a child, it's like getting a motorbike, you start with a small bike, and graduate to bigger things.

Everything is designed with a purpose in the terms we are talking about here. TDK, was designed purely to entertain, however, it is, nevertheless a piece of cinema, which is, the most important art form(according to Lenin amongst other figures, and he helped use it to shape the globe). So on the one hand, you can ask, "Did TDK entertain me?" A simple yes or no can work here, talk about how the film made you feel and such like.

However when talking about art in such a manner, the sheer sway of influence and power it can have, whether intentional or unintentional, can make a huge difference to how a film is viewed. Because, it is often argued, and generally succesfully, that a piece of cinema, cannot be just entertainment, as media is the governing factor in our society in western civiliasation.

So then you must look to TDK with fresh eyes and examine is differently.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. That films should not be purely entertainment?

If so, it's an assessment I disagree with, as I feel some of the all-time great films are designed purely to entertain, and do so stunningly well. But at the same time, I do think "The Dark Knight" aspires to be more than just entertainment, and touches on some big issues. I felt that it's a film that's relevant to our times. Of course, the way it chooses to do so may not be as refined as an Indie film that is purely issue-driven, with no aspiration to "entertain", in the traditional sense at least. But "The Dark Knight" balances between both, aiming to both entertain and make its audience think. And the fact that it articulates its issues in a clear, concise, accessible manner is hardly a flaw that puts it below more "intelligent" movies. Rather, if a film can entertain and excite us for its duration, AND have you talking and thinking after its finished, I'd say it's a strength.

There are films designed purely to entertain, and ones designed purely to raise issues and spark debate, and others designed purely to stand as a piece of art. And no one type of film is inherently better or lesser than the other. It all depends on the execution, how well the film realises its respective purpose.

 

[RoboAmish]

“Take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide… has a taste for the theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card”
So began a journey of three years that led to this film, The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan’s incredible and superior follow up to Batman Begins. It very much follows the template established by its prequel while feeling somewhat self-contained as well. The end of Begins which suggested the theme of escalation is built upon here with the emergence of the criminal mastermind known as The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger and the idea of things getting a whole lot worse before they get better.

There was a lot of misplaced optimism at the end of the first movie. It looked as if Gotham had turned a corner. It had, but not in the way Batman had intended. Instead the floodgates had been opened for a “better class of criminal” as Batman couldn’t possibly have comprehended the threat his presence would encourage. Enter The Joker

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first; Ledger is incredible as The Joker. An “agent of chaos” as he calls himself, the actor puts in possibly the greatest performance ever committed in a comic book movie. While he channels The Joker from some of his most celebrated appearances in comics (his idea of proving a point that all people are as crazy and anarchic as him reminds one of Alan Moore’s version of the character in The Killing Joke) and yet gives his own original spin on the character. He is presented here as a sociopath anarchist who seeks to usher in a new age for Gotham. Although he presents himself as a “mad dog”, his motives are much grander as he attempts to break the city and watch it descend into madness. Thankfully, the team behind this film realised not to over exploit their villain and the promise that he had no real story arc is proven to be true, as he simply appears, causes chaos and then disappears. He still has his comic moments but we are never for one moment let forget that we are still dealing with a killer and not a clown. Ledger simply steals ever scene he’s in and even hovers over those scenes he’s not in, giving a constant feeling of dread. You often forget you are watching Heath, so totally has he disappeared into the role and he is, as of now, the frontrunner for the Oscar.

But to ignore the strengths of the other characters would be a crime and at the heart of this film are three characters and their relationship. The fruitful alliance of Lieutenant Jim Gordon, D.A. Harvey Dent and Batman himself is the core of the movie and each actor puts in a superb performance. Batman is once again the main player in the film and it’s encouraging to see some real progression as it appears his trouble with duality is over. He is able to switch from personas and is a completely different character when he dons the cape and cowl, with only little traces of Wayne coming out when The Joker starts pushing his buttons. Although it was nice to see a vigilante at the start of his career in Begins, the way Batman is at the peak of his powers like in the comic, has never been portrayed correctly. Bale rectifies this and puts in the definitive Batman performance. He still has much to learn about the gravity of his role in shaping Gotham, but you feel by the end of the film, he has finally accepted his call absolutely and indefinitely. Although some may find fault with his choice of voice, he has cemented his position as the definitive big-screen Batman. Bale’s Wayne is a treat also.

Gary Oldman deserves big plaudits for his role as the new Commissioner of Gotham. After the foundations of a relationship with Batman in the first film, he finally lives up to his potential as a character and is giving a juicy role to sink his teeth into. And boy, does he step up to the challenge. As a man forced to deal with corruption in his own force, he perhaps remains the purest character in the three way relationship and never wavers from his position as guardian of Gotham even when dealing with his these problems. He is the silent good cop, just doing his job, and not looking to be a public hero like Dent or Batman. That is the strength of his character and is one of the best things about the film.

This brings me to Harvey Dent, the real ace in the hole of this movie. It’s clear what Nolan meant when he said that Dent’s fall was the backbone of the movie. Dent becomes little more than The Joker’s pet project as he strives to show that even the most incorruptible figure can snap just like him. Aaron Eckhart is phenomenal in the part, playing the character nearly identically from the comic books, a charismatic yet doggedly determined lawyer. He is given amply screen time throughout so we actually care about this character when he turns. He remains a symbol of hope throughout the film for the people of the city to keep fighting on in dark times as Gotham’s “White Knight”. His turn into Two-Face in many ways reflects one of the main themes- that of how far a person needs to be pushed before they cross their boundaries and betray those ideals they once stood by and as such is very much used to prove a point by The Joker.

The film boasts one of the strongest ensemble casts in years and everyone puts in excellent performances. Maggie Gyllenhaal proves a more than adequate replacement for Katie Holmes, bringing feistiness and charm to what, under Holmes, was a dull and wasted character and the major flaw of the first film. She’s written much better this time around in addition. Michael Caine’s role is sidelined to make way for the relationship between the men of law and of disorder in this film but he still gives in a typically great performance as a much needed ray of light to Bruce as well as providing some winning humour to brighten the darkness. And Morgan Freeman impresses as Lucius Fox, now CEO of Wayne Enterprises, who actually gets some pretty interesting storylines as his distaste for his boss’ manipulation of his technology becomes apparent. Also worth mention is Eric Roberts who plays mob boss Sal Maroni with relish.

All this and I haven’t even spoken of the plot yet. But like most great films, TDK tells its story through its characterisations and their interactions. The plot presented features the alliance between Batman, Dent and Gordon attempting to curb both the mob and corruption in the police force in the city, both of which The Joker seeks to exploit for his own gain. The script is incredible sharp, with sparkling dialogue and a plot that is told through its rich characters as opposed to external to these actors. It does this mostly through the character’s relationships through which the majority of the story has told. The two most important relationships in the story and which show the true depth of the plot is the Batman/ Joker relationship and the Batman/ Gordon/ Dent relationship around which the plot is centred. Here are three characters with different forms of justice, thrust into an alliance which shows how each are important to cleaning a city, a task that requires more than one hero. It is through this that one of the major themes of the movie is explored- the nature of heroism and what it takes to betray it. This relationship comes full circle in the thought provoking ending, a powerful examination of why exactly Batman is needed and what type of hero he was. By taking the fall for Dent, the example of the “White Knight” could continue on in the hearts and minds of citizens, even if Harvey had eventually failed in being the kind of hero he should have been. Batman’s role is solidified as is Dent’s, who through his “death” has become as much of a symbol as Batman is, through dramatic examples.

But the most interesting relationship in the movie is of course, the long awaited confrontation of The Batman and The Joker. And it doesn’t disappoint. We see traces of the obsession The Joker has with Batman with his almost admiration of him at the meetings of the mob and his targeting of him through a terror campaign. Their meeting on the streets demonstrates what is later explained in the interrogation room, The Joker wants Batman to break his one rule. All this is further expanded upon in some of the best scenes of the film. In the interrogation room scene we see the psychologically complex relationship between the two as The Joker admits he’s not interested in killing Batman. “You Complete Me”, he gleefully proclaims. The Joker is interested in breaking Batman’s spirit through breaking Gotham and vice versa, but does not want to kill him as he’s simply “too much fun”. Their chilling final confrontation brings this point home as neither is willing to kill the other and both are seemingly trapped in an endless dance forever. “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object”.

Although a dark and grim film, the end is strangely uplifting with Batman’s sacrifice and the fact that the citizens on the barges did not tear which other apart, shows that even though it appears The Joker has won the battle, there are no real victors in the battle and no one has failed absolutely. There is self-sacrifice and pain for all. Accolades must be given to the Nolan brothers for crafting this fitting finale as well as the whole screenplay overall which creates the gloomy world of Gotham, the real soul of the story (as said by The Joker himself) and intertwine these themes with this world of characters. Nolan also again demonstrates why he is considered one of the best directors in the business with arguably his finest work yet and shows a real improvement in areas such as shooting action (with a chase scene particularly impressing). Wally Pffister’s cinematography is flawless once again and should bag him a well deserved Oscar. And of course the score perfectly compliments the action on screen.

Flaws are hard to find and mostly nitpicks. Some may feel it’s too long, but there’s always something going on and it never drags with little padding and great pacing. Some will feel Scarecrow and Two-Face are wasted but I think they did what was required of them in the context of the overall film- in Crane’s case as an example that super villains were always functioning and returning in Gotham and Batman had to deal with them and in Two-Face’s case as almost a plot device to prove The Joker’s point. And Bale’s voice was much improved this time around I feel.

So in conclusion, if you want a summer blockbuster with plenty of spectacle then this ticks all the right boxes. But it is still in the film’s quieter moments that it impresses, meaning this film will endure much longer than any normal summer popcorn fare thanks to its superb plot centred around intelligent themes, incredible sense of tense atmosphere, the best ensemble performances in a long time which altogether create a dark and haunting film that will linger in the mind long after the lights have been turned on. Film of the year… and possibly any year.

Perfect. 5/5

 

[Dark Carnage]

Technically fantastic.

And yet, I was bored all the way through.

 

[Schlosser85]

My video review:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dutZChvhxQ4

 

[KILLING JOKER]

THE DARK KNIGHT My Review

"The Dark Knight" is a very different film than "Batman Begins." It's what a sequel should be. It's a film that reflects the original but then takes the characters into an entirely different world. As some have mentioned, Gotham city seems like a completely different place in this film. Nolans attention to detail is amazing. Colors, lighting and placement is all very important in his films and "The Dark Knight" is one of the best examples of that. The opening sequence, many of us caught early, is so brilliant on it's own that it comes across as a short film. The intensity attacks your senses in a way that few movies can and from that point on the movie owns you.

This introduction of Heath Ledger as the Joker is simply one of the greatest scenes in movie history. When the clown mask comes off and we see this Joker we realize why these Nolan movies are so amazing. Ledger gives only a quick flash of a grin. The amazing less is more belief that Nolan obviously understands is what grounds these films in reality. We invest in these characters because they aren't screaming out "I'm a comic book character!" No, these characters breathe and they are completely fleshed out. Heath Ledger is nothing short of brilliant. It cannot be denied that this creation of the Joker is truly effective and in the best possible way. Evil, scary, funny and downright chilling. The performance goes far beyond what your imagination can come up with. As a fan of graphic novel "The Killing Joke" I felt, at times, that I was watching that Joker. It was amazing.

Aaron Eckhart was also very impressive in a completely different way. While Ledger remains unhinged and Bale plays the duality like before, Eckhart plays Harvey Dent who has to transform before our eyes and make it work. It works and works amazingly well. Christian Bale was stellar in "Begins" and really kicks it up a notch in "The Dark Knight." There's so much going on in this movie and how all the characters effect one another. It's such an involving story to begin with but when you have amazingly talented actors to really turn the thing on, it quickens your pulse. As far as the rest of the cast they all were top notch but Gary Oldman as Gordon is so fanatastic, he simply owns much of the film himself.

The action in "The Dark Knight" is much more advanced than what was in "Begins." The spectacular sequences remain thrilling long after the film is over and why? Because they are shot with as little CGI as possible. It's this integrity that makes Nolan one of the best filmmakers out there. He understands that the more computer you use in a film the farther away you take the audience. Something this years "Indiana Jones" promised to deliver but failed miserably. Nolan also understands that characters and story come first and that action and special effects are merely icing on the cake. "The Dark Knight" manages to literally have it all.

My only very slight critticism of the film is that there are times when the movie unnecessarily steps out of it's bleak brilliance to seemingly cater to a blockbuster audience. However, the richness and complexity of everything else in the film simply dwarfs that minor complaint. This is a film that I will be thrilled to be entertained by over and over again.

 

[Batman jr.]

^ One of the best reviews I've read so far. Agree with all your points.

 

[The Guard]

I would have your back 100% if they cut Gordon's speech out of the ending. But he's talking to his kid and the kid is obviously supposed to represent the audience. So they treat us like children and justify what is, to me, an abhorrent action. That bothers me a lot.

Exactly.

"Lie to people, son. It's easier than preparing them for the truth".

 

[sasquatchs]

We dont know his rationale. You can look at it like that but the fact is even in inaction he's making a choice. The fact is everyone did want him to press the button and would have absolved him for it.

No they wouldn't, a sizeable portion were against it and who knows how people would react after it's actually happened.

It's not true that he cant make a choice, he strongly advocates a choice. It's just that when he is given the responsibility, he changes.

Let's not pussyfoot around with what's a choice and what's not, unlike the prisoner he doesn't make a decision for everyone on his boat. He's not willing to make the choice that he advocates, there's nothing there to suggest he's changed his mind, he just doesn't have the courage to go through with it

 

[Superhobo]

Exactly.

"Lie to people, son. It's easier than preparing them for the truth".

So, your problem is, basically, that it was a morally reprehensible action?

Lame.