I really dont get it... (Dark Knight)

[ccdistancerunner]

I liked the Joker as portrayed by Nicholson, and also by Ledger, because Keith did not play the exact same style of character. Both were evil, yes, but Ledger was causing havoc just because he could. Nicolson was trying to take over Gothman for his own purposes. I'd have to say I prefered Keith's interpretation of the Joker.
Bale's Batman voice was terrible. But I can see why, unlike every other movie beside Batman Begins, desguising his voice as Batman was actually tried.
Oh and I hated Batman Begins and Batman Forever.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

But Snyder and crue basicly said "Fuck that" and had Manhattan's penis, rape scene, desintegration and bone-comming-out-of-arm goodness, and took a risk with that(R-rated superhero movies are NEVER a safe bet).

Yet he couldn't bring himself to show what Rorschach ACTUALLY did to the guy who ha murdered and fed the six year old girl to his dogs.

In the comic, Rorshach chaincuffed him to a pipe, dropped a saw next to him and started to set the house on fire, implying that if the guy wanted to escape the flames he had to cut off his own hand first (which he failed in doing of course, while Rorschach calmly stood and looked at the house burning down).

In the movie, he went anger-emo and chopped him in the head with a meat cleaver... And thatäs it. That's not someone snapping, that's someone being overcome with emotion, grief and despair. In fact itäs a caricature of someone snapping. That's not Rorschach. Rorschach snapped in more sinister ways that night. He realized what had happened and instead of going:

-"OMG! That's so awful! m gonna kill this guy for doing this awful thing to that little girl!"

He went:

"Oh..." And then subjected the criminal to a calculated demise. Sort of the kind of guy who goes to the same job or 30 years and takes all manner of bullshit with a smile on his face. Then one day he calmly enters his office with a shotgun and calmly and methodically shoot his co-workers to death, with that same plastered smile and seren facial expression.

That's what Rorshach was supposed to be like. Instead they made him into a Wolverine-ish, gruff bad-ass anti-hero with a voice that sounds like skin scraping on sandpaper. Which is kind of nice, sure, but It's not Rorschach...

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

But Snyder and crue basicly said "Fuck that" and had Manhattan's penis, rape scene, desintegration and bone-comming-out-of-arm goodness, and took a risk with that(R-rated superhero movies are NEVER a safe bet).

Yet he couldn't bring himself to show what Rorschach ACTUALLY did to the guy who ha murdered and fed the six year old girl to his dogs.

In the comic, Rorshach chaincuffed him to a pipe, dropped a saw next to him and started to set the house on fire, implying that if the guy wanted to escape the flames he had to cut off his own hand first (which he failed in doing of course, while Rorschach calmly stood and looked at the house burning down).

In the movie, he went anger-emo and chopped him in the head with a meat cleaver... And thatäs it. That's not someone snapping, that's someone being overcome with emotion, grief and despair. In fact itäs a caricature of someone snapping. That's not Rorschach. Rorschach snapped in more sinister ways that night. He realized what had happened and instead of going:

-"OMG! That's so awful! m gonna kill this guy for doing this awful thing to that little girl!"

He went:

"Oh..." And then subjected the criminal to a calculated demise. Sort of the kind of guy who goes to the same job or 30 years and takes all manner of bullshit with a smile on his face. Then one day he calmly enters his office with a shotgun and calmly and methodically shoot his co-workers to death, with that same plastered smile and seren facial expression.

That's what Rorshach was supposed to be like. Instead they made him into a Wolverine-ish, gruff bad-ass anti-hero with a voice that sounds like skin scraping on sandpaper. Which is kind of nice, sure, but It's not Rorschach...

I'ver read the comic, and I know the scene, but to me this is same thing diffrent version. The idea was that that night Rorshach changed, and the ideea was sent to the public in both film and comic. And good sir, this is called nitpicking. I understand you are a fan, but when something translates from one medium to another subtle changes have to take place and for all intents and pupuses Watchmen is a "how-to" on making an adaptation, making it intsantlly recognizble and relevant to fans but be open for an audiance that isn't initiated and doesn't know what the hell is going to happen straight from the get-go . If you expect every scene to be exacly like in the sorce material and spaz-out if it's a diffrent take with the same message, I'm sorry but you're becoming a fan-boy who simply and can't be pleased.

 

[azukar]

Much as I'm not a slavering Ledger fan, I think his interpretation of the Joker was what made the movie. It was well-written and very atmospheric, but would have been far too long and very disconnected if the villain wasn't believable. I found the Joker in the movie to be the most fascinating part of the lot, not gravelmouth Batman or Two-Face, who more or less could've been written out of this movie completely without diminishing it (saving him for the third instalment like the fanbase seemed to be expecting).

 

[CakeDragon]

Hmm, it wasn't too bad I guess. But I much prefer Batman Forever because it was a lot more light-hearted. The Dark Knight was very heavy-going, I found. The whole "cartooniness" of Batman Forever made it quite charming, in a way. Also, Tommy Lee Jones and Twoface, haha

Off-topic for a second:
There's a place in the centre of town where a load of kids hang out at weekends and after school and one of them dresses up like Heath Ledger's Joker quite a lot. It's a bit, I dunno, weird.

 

[Reklore]

I got to say its the best movie in the world!....But thats just me.

Why? Well, the plot was intense, the acting was great (not just Heath, and i know that Bale played Batman wooden but its BATMAN not the cry baby Spiderman (by the way i like spiderman 2)) cool fight scenes, interesting cat cash, character deportment(not just Harvey to Twoface but Batman understanding the Joker wicth he didn't until near the end) and the not so good vs evil, but as a grey area. And also true to the characters.

There why I like it.

By the way, hateing a movie because of its fans does not make it a bad movie.

 

[DracoSuave]

Some smart stuff

The thing with a comic book, you see, is you can always flip back and forth, and read things out of order. You can look at something, and then flip back -immediately- and see what was being refered to or talked about. You can see one scene play out, and immediately compare it to another scene.

Movies, on the other hand, do not have this inherent advantage. (They're made for the theatre before anyone says Scene Selection) Which means that their very -nature- requires scenes be shown or cut differently, sometimes 'out of order' or sometimes not at all due to the preservation of narrative flow.

And while a comic book can show you some guy being ripped to shreds, sometimes it's actually -better- to show a meat cleaver shot and that's it. You -get- the idea, why belabor the point? It's not like the fight scenes which were, by their nature, a deconstruction of the comic-book-movie fight style.

It's a fanboy's movie enough as it is. It's enjoyable, it illustrates the themes of the original work, and does so in an elegant and non-convoluted manner.

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

Some smart stuff

The thing with a comic book, you see, is you can always flip back and forth, and read things out of order. You can look at something, and then flip back -immediately- and see what was being refered to or talked about. You can see one scene play out, and immediately compare it to another scene.

Movies, on the other hand, do not have this inherent advantage. (They're made for the theatre before anyone says Scene Selection) Which means that their very -nature- requires scenes be shown or cut differently, sometimes 'out of order' or sometimes not at all due to the preservation of narrative flow.

And while a comic book can show you some guy being ripped to shreds, sometimes it's actually -better- to show a meat cleaver shot and that's it. You -get- the idea, why belabor the point? It's not like the fight scenes which were, by their nature, a deconstruction of the comic-book-movie fight style.

It's a fanboy's movie enough as it is. It's enjoyable, it illustrates the themes of the original work, and does so in an elegant and non-convoluted manner.

Exactlly.

 

[HellbirdIV]

The Dark Knight was probably not the best movie ever made, and certainly not in my book, but I think it's quite unfair to judge it poorly just because it was hyped so much. It's still enjoyable both as a character study (the Joker's so-called 'experiments', the relation/contrast between Batman and Harvey Dent) and of course as just a Comicbook Superhero movie, with lots of absolutely great action scenes (The bit at the end with the SWAT Team is intense and very satisfying to watch).

As for "Why so serious?"? Well, it's just a tagline. Just like last year (???) we had 300 (another comic-book movie) with a rather iconic tagline of its own, easily far more abused than the Dark Knight's. It's just a way to emote that you really like the film, or hell, even just the line, which is in itself just a pretty cool line (especially the way Ledger says it, which is just kind of pantswetting)

 

[The Rockerfly]

OMG POPULAR STUFF SUCKS

I'm actullly getting so sick and tired of people who think that because they don't like something popular, their opinion is the first and the only one

let's get something clear, YOUR OPINIONS
ARE
NOTHING
SPECIAL
It was a great film and if you thought it was shit, go watch some shitty films then watch Dark Knight and then you will realise it's not shit
Rawrgh
/rant

 

[asinann]

does the fact that the most enjoyable character in a Batman movie was not Batman bother anyone else?

The Joker (and everyone that has played him) has always been more fun to watch than Batman. That said, the movie was good, but it wasn't great.

 

[Hitman 43]

*SNIP*

Well I myself enjoyed TDK simply because of the excellent acting from everyone, (especially Heath Ledger as the Joker, who played the part to perfection), very good action scenes, great directing and small but effective twists in the story.

And if you will notice that The Joker was nowhere as much spoken of as he is now after The Dark Knight.

But hey, we all have different tastes and opinion. If you didn't like it, that's your perspective and it doesn't change my opinion of the film.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It just didn't fell like Batman and neither did Batman Begins.

It felt like John Grishams Batman.

 

[GrinningManiac]

I liked it because the Joker was so damn intresting.

I remember seeing it in a packed cinema, and he made people both squeam (knife in mouth), go quiet (the boats) and laugh out loud (nurse costume).

Really bizarre, so intresting.

Batman kinda took sidestage for Heath. I suppose if you've seen it recently for the first time, everyone will have told you how good it was, giving you first-hand solid "hype". Whereas seeing it before anyone else gives you that failsafe of "pre-release hype" that allows you to become skepticle, then plesantly suprised. With you, you had it on good authority that it WAS brilliant, hyping it for you completley

 

[BulletMoaf]

" ... saw District 9. "

mmmmmm.... caaat fooood ..... *garblegarbledroool*

 

[damselgaming]

By any stretch of the imagination it's not a BAD movie, it's a well made, thought out, well shot one. Then again I understand the gripes people would have.

I was not impressed by all the Heath Ledger worshipping, a girl in my 6th Form cried for literally 3 days about it, god knows why. And I understand how some fans of Batman might not be pleased with how stuff is portrayed and then becomes clothing etc. Even if it's just little things it can ruin a movie. I mean, as a Watchmen fan I enjoyed the movie, it was good, but I did spaz out a bit in the cinema when it was doing the Dr M sequence and it changed the watch from being Janies to being his. I don't know why, just one of those moments.

 

[LackingSaint]

I thought it was a very good evolution of the superhero genre; making the genre grow up without resorting to being too cult and non-mainstream. To be honest i'm getting very annoyed with people claiming it was only popular because of Heath Ledger's death; honestly I never even paid much attention to the hype or the actors, but more at the story and characters. It's the kind of people that pay so much attention to the hype of a movie than the actual movie that make Hannah Montana and High School Musical so popular.

 

[vampirekid.13]

I finally, about 3 hours ago, saw the Dark Knight for the first time with my girlfriend, and in all honesty I can say this is probably the most overrated movie in recent memory (rivaled only by the likes of Slum Dog Millionaire).

Now I had no intention of ever watching this movie, because the Joker "fan base" pissed me off to no end. I think it's safe to say I can tell what kind of person you are if you have anything that says "Why so serious?" and know we have nothing in common, and can never be friends.

Ranting aside, can anyone please point out why this movie is good? Or better yet, explain why people are so obsessed over it? Sure, the "OMGHEATHLEDGER" trend lasted about 2 months, but it still wasn't deserved.

Just wondering if I'm the only person who didn't enjoy this film?

im not sure what dark knight u watched but the one i saw included:

flawless acting.
decent story line.
great action scenes.
a bad guy that just mind-f***s u the whole movie.
and possibly the best magic trick i ever saw in my life.