The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

How Do You Rate The Dark Knight?

  • 10 - The praise isn't a matter of hyperbole. Get your keister to the theater to see this NOW! :up:

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5 - We had to endure the boards crashing for this? :dry:

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1 - They should have stopped while they were ahead with Batman Begins. :down


Results are only viewable after voting.
my problem with superman returns was there was like 2 action scenes! we are talking about a movie that features the most powerful superhero ever and all he was doing was flying around catching airplanes and cars with there brakes shot. what a waste of a hero IMO
 
my problem with superman returns was there was like 2 action scenes! we are talking about a movie that features the most powerful superhero ever and all he was doing was flying around catching airplanes and cars with there brakes shot. what a waste of a hero IMO
thats exactly how i felt. that and the fact the Returns was just a reshot Superman: The Movie. it was more of an homage to Donner's films than a sequel to them.
 
When and where has it been established that Rachel is supposed to be beautiful in order to be portrayed right?

It is an unwritten law that the love interest of the superhero has to be atractive and pretty, especially for a blockbuster movie, imo.



thats exactly how i felt. that and the fact the Returns was just a reshot Superman: The Movie. it was more of an homage to Donner's films than a sequel to them.

I think that SR offers much more than just homeges to the Donner films. The bones are very similar, but the flesh is totally different. To each their own.
 
It is an unwritten law that the love interest of the superhero has to be atractive and pretty, especially for a blockbuster movie, imo.

It's a law.... but in your opinion?
Well then, I find this law very stupid and I respectfully disagree with your opinion.:cwink:
 
lol, yea how can it be law AND a opinion!? i think maggies attractive in a quirky sorta way not your stereotypical supermodel style. and to be honest i think its unrealistic that the love interest is ALWAYS unbelievably gorgeous so it adds to the realism.
 
lol, yea how can it be law AND a opinion!? i think maggies attractive in a quirky sorta way not your stereotypical supermodel style. and to be honest i think its unrealistic that the love interest is ALWAYS unbelievably gorgeous so it adds to the realism.

Her beauty is a matter of opinion, but to believe that a love interest has to be hot to be... believable (of all things!) is something that I consider very wrong. Michael Bay thrives in mentalities like this.
 
Her beauty is a matter of opinion, but to believe that a love interest has to be hot to be... believable (of all things!) is something that I consider very wrong. Michael Bay thrives in mentalities like this.



Agreed!
 
my problem with superman returns was there was like 2 action scenes! we are talking about a movie that features the most powerful superhero ever and all he was doing was flying around catching airplanes and cars with there brakes shot. what a waste of a hero IMO
The characters' motivations weren't believable for me, and that list included Supes, Lex Luthor (UGH Lex Luthor), and Lois. My favorite character in the film was Richard White. :oldrazz:
 
The characters' motivations weren't believable for me, and that list included Supes, Lex Luthor (UGH Lex Luthor), and Lois. My favorite character in the film was Richard White. :oldrazz:

Richard was great, I like Marsden a lot. And, let me tell you a little secret, when he was piloting the plane that saved Supes, he looked like a more charismatic Mark Hamill to me. If SW: Eps7-9 get made, he's Luke Skywalker (with Nathan Fillion as Han Solo, of course). Off topic as heck, but I just wanted to say it somewhere.
 
Care to elaborate? :oldrazz:
LOL, I didn't aim to make this into a "criticize SR" thread but since you asked...:oldrazz:

I liked SR in general. It was clearly made by people who cared about their work, which is why it's so frustrating for it to have these story and character issues. It would have easily been a masterpiece if it didn't have these huge problems on such a basic level.

Well, I guess my main issue with SR was that the trailers gave me the idea that the premise was so much more epic than it actually was. Not sure if WB marketing dept is to blame for this or...what. :oldrazz: The trailers (and I guess the marketing in general, although I can't recall any other particulars) said the movie was "Superman struggles to find his place in a world that has moved on without him." The film actually was "Superman struggles to find a place in Lois's life, since she's moved on without him." So any decisions that Superman made regarding his "conflict" was immediately kind of lame compared to what could have been.

Leaving for 5 whole years without telling anyone, especially Lois, and his motivation for that was that it would be too painful for him to say good-bye to the woman he loves? Ehhh. But then again, I'm not a fan of chick flicks where the conflict would be resolved with just a little better communication. I just think those characters are all idiots and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. :funny:

Lois is just a woman who can't communicate with her men. No sympathy from me, but that's a personal thing. :oldrazz:

I'm not familiar with Luthor in the comics, but I get the idea that he's supposed to be this genius megalomaniac. He even mentions in SR that with the FoS crystals, he'll have technology beyond imagination. And what does he do with them? He uses them as a ginormous crystal-growing experiment. Because he thinks the few people that have survived this experiment, out of the "billions" that will die, will pay him lots of $$$ to live on giant crystals that you can't grow anything on. :dry: I think that was the most egregious character issue.

Richard White, as portrayed in SR, is a nice guy caught in a love triangle he didn't want to be in. Not his fault that his fiance is in love with another man. All he wants is the best for Lois and Jason. I get that, so that's why I found him the most likable character.
 
yea ive just realised that, good point anita! you cant grow crops on giant crystals!!!!!!!!
 
It's a law.... but in your opinion?
Well then, I find this law very stupid and I respectfully disagree with your opinion.:cwink:

OK


lol, yea how can it be law AND a opinion!? i think maggies attractive in a quirky sorta way not your stereotypical supermodel style. and to be honest i think its unrealistic that the love interest is ALWAYS unbelievably gorgeous so it adds to the realism.

I never said that she needed to be unbelievably gorgeous, did I? :huh:

Just cute, attractive and pretty, which Maggie isn't, to me at least.



Her beauty is a matter of opinion, but to believe that a love interest has to be hot to be... believable (of all things!) is something that I consider very wrong. Michael Bay thrives in mentalities like this.

Yeah, in my opinion she is not attractive enough to play a believable love interest for Batman. And hot? I never mentioned that word.

Yeah, I know what you mean about M. Bay. I HATE Transformers, and think Miss Fox looked..so cheap in that movie.
 
ive already seen it twice on Imax and twice on regular theatre,

IMAX is the ****!!!!!

this movie is THE best superhero movie ever.

just simply stunning.

visually, sonically, and the acting is just immense.

I don't know how Nolan can top this one!

i just feel a bit of sadness knowing that Heath can't reprise his role.

the way he kicked batman's ass in this movie and owned everybody else's just makes it badass beyond belief!!

seriously, every showing is SOLD out here in the UK, Imax is sold out for months!!

you cannot get a ticket for TDK unless its a regular theatre showing!!
and even then, the showings are packed out!!
 
oh yeah, anybody who says Maggie isn't fit, needs to get some goggles!!

she was HOT in this movie!!
 
i think shes nice in a quirky sorta way, not stunning. i dont really like her eyes they sorta sag down a bit. but in secretary she was damn sexxy!!!!!! yowzer!!
 
LOL, I didn't aim to make this into a "criticize SR" thread but since you asked...:oldrazz:

Neither did I. I was just curious. What have you done?!? :wow:

I liked SR in general. It was clearly made by people who cared about their work, which is why it's so frustrating for it to have these story and character issues. It would have easily been a masterpiece if it didn't have these huge problems on such a basic level.

Well, I guess my main issue with SR was that the trailers gave me the idea that the premise was so much more epic than it actually was. Not sure if WB marketing dept is to blame for this or...what. The trailers (and I guess the marketing in general, although I can't recall any other particulars) said the movie was "Superman struggles to find his place in a world that has moved on without him." The film actually was "Superman struggles to find a place in Lois's life, since she's moved on without him." So any decisions that Superman made regarding his "conflict" was immediately kind of lame compared to what could have been.

Um, OK. I agree the marketing was more or less dubious as to what exactly the movie was about. I remember the synopsis. If you compare that to the film it kinda differs :grin:

Leaving for 5 whole years without telling anyone, especially Lois, and his motivation for that was that it would be too painful for him to say good-bye to the woman he loves? Ehhh. But then again, I'm not a fan of chick flicks where the conflict would be resolved with just a little better communication. I just think those characters are all idiots and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. :funny:

Actually he did tell Martha Kent. But anyway, I see no real problem with him not saying goodbye to Lois, because I can understand why he wouldn't. This Superman was incredibly human (i.e. flawed) so it never really bothered me. And the movie acknowledges that it was a mistake. And that was the point.

Lois is just a woman who can't communicate with her men. No sympathy from me, but that's a personal thing. :oldrazz:

LOL.

I'm not familiar with Luthor in the comics, but I get the idea that he's supposed to be this genius megalomaniac. He even mentions in SR that with the FoS crystals, he'll have technology beyond imagination. And what does he do with them? He uses them as a ginormous crystal-growing experiment. Because he thinks the few people that have survived this experiment, out of the "billions" that will die, will pay him lots of $$$ to live on giant crystals that you can't grow anything on. I think that was the most egregious character issue.

To be fair, we only saw New Krypton for what, an hour? I assume creating "advanced alien technology" takes some time. Luthor says (earlier in the movie) "vehicles, weapons, the technology on Superman's homeworld was based on the manipulation of crystals" ...Now...Exactly how he planned to (or when he planned to) create these things is something you'll have to ask the filmmakers. While it would have been nice to see actual Krypton technology, I assume budget mishandling never allowed for that. Which is, by the way, my only real critique of the movie: They didn't use their resources right! :hehe:

Oh, and by "people" giving him $$$, I think he means countries, governments paying for a piece of New Krypton, not tourists looking for beachfront property :grin:

Richard White, as portrayed in SR, is a nice guy caught in a love triangle he didn't want to be in. Not his fault that his fiance is in love with another man. All he wants is the best for Lois and Jason. I get that, so that's why I found him the most likable character.

Everyone loves Richard...
 
for those that don't find Maggie attractive... well... to each there own..
for those that do?.. one word for ya.. "secretary"... go watch it...
 
Imagine Nolan casting Megan Fox for Rachel instead of Maggie:D
 
So, just saw it for the third time(a little exessive i know), and the critics were right when they say it's the best superhero movie ever made. I think it's a whole other level to batman begins, which i thought was generic, mediocre drivel. Makes me wonder how Nolan could make it's sequel sooooooo gooooood. Ok, TDK is not tantmount to perusing the contours of Michaelangelo's the last supper as one reviewer said. That is just pretentious. But for the first time in my opinion, a director has managed to lay all the ingredients i want into a 'comic book' movie; complex themes, questions and issues, finely balanced with characterisation and thrilling action sequences.

My only problems with it are;

Gylenhall is pretty much tit for tat replecemant for Holmes. Really, i even smiled a little bit when it all went kaboom!

Dent's scarring- really, it would have looked good in a burton film, hell even a Shumacher film, but in a Nolan film it is jarringly out of place. No, i'm not advocating teh realizm!! but since everything else is attempting to be plausible, they should have done something a bit more subtle. It was funny.

that's it. Those are the only issues with this film that i can see thus far.
 
Dent's scarring- really, it would have looked good in a burton film, hell even a Shumacher film, but in a Nolan film it is jarringly out of place. No, i'm not advocating teh realizm!! but since everything else is attempting to be plausible, they should have done something a bit more subtle. It was funny
To their credit, at least Gordon mentioned that Dent had refused skin grafts. It's still unrealistic, but not as out-of-place as if he had been burned and then he looked like that after being treated at the hospital.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"