Dark Knight discussions (**SPOILERS!!**)

Just got back from seeing it. Loved it, loved it, loved it.

But still, a few quibbles:

1. I thought the Two-Face disfigurement was a little far-fetched. No way a guy with that much facial burning is even conscious, let alone walking around with a gun. I know you've got a to suspend disbelief a little bit in superhero movies, but that's one of the things that has always separated Batman from other films in the genre — Batman (and his adversaries) weren't super-human, just regular guys with cool gadgets. But they went with cool special effects instead of realism in that instance.

2. I, too, was left hanging (no pun intended) by the Joker's last scene. My understanding is that Ledger was done filming his scenes when he died, so if there was a later scene filmed, it was left out intentionally. I don't think they can bring the Joker back in the next film, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did it eventually. I mean, how many people thought Jack Nicholson couldn't be topped? (including Jack himself). But Ledger was amazing, right up there with Javier Bardem in "No Country For Old Men" among recent screen villains.

3. Speaking of Bardem, that's all I could think about every time Two-Face/Dent pulled out his coin. I'm sure that's true to the comic book, but the "I'm going to flip a coin to decide whether or not I'm going to kill you" trick now belongs to Anton Chigurh for all time.

Good movie, though. Never a dull moment, and solid acting performances all around.

P.S. — The convict who throws the detonator overboard is most definitely Tiny "Zeus" Lister. As a one-time WWF-obsessed teen, I'd know his cockeyed stare anywhere.

 

That's funny . . . .the "No Country for Old Men" thing made me think, "Cool! Like Two-Face!"

Anyway, just saw it again. In Ebert's review of Fellowship of the Ring, he wrote, "This does not match my vision of Middle Earth, and that is my problem." So I guess wanting more from this Joker that had been lauded as being so scary falls under the same category.

It was good; better the second time around. But certainly not up to the (Ledger's death-induced) incredible praise it has received. I guess it's a lot better (and scarier) if you haven't read the comics the filmmakers say they were influenced by.

But yeah, it's really good. I'll be seeing it again.

A note about reviews: just purchased Superman Returns on DVD for eight bucks. Its reviews were sky-high at the time. Man, what a bad movie.

 

I waited through the credits for another Joker appearance and was disappointed. Also was surprised to find Dawes actually dead, I was expecting a bigger sendoff for the character.
One of the things I enjoyed about the movie it was that it had a message, that "doing good" by doing bad things isn't doing good. Like the Joker said, you get a little taste of it and its a slippery slope. The ferry bombs sequence was extremely well done.
And IMDB has a FAQ section that has answers to a number of these questions.

 

One thing I didn't get about the ferry bomb scene was that while the the cops/soldiers on the "convict" boat were adamant about not blowing up the "citizens" boat, why would the cops/soldiers on the "citizens" boat relent and allow the one guy to take the detonator, knowing that there were cops/soldiers on the "convict" boat?

Doesn't make sense. Even if the commanding officer relented and tried to give up the detonator, you'd think a fellow officer would have gotten in his face and said "wait, there's 25 of our guys on that boat!"

But it didn't happen, which I found strange.

 

Anyone know how much the shooting of this movie affected Chicago? That city has never looked so good. Some of those shots looked as if they'd have to shut down the whole city for. Of course, that's what CGI is for.

And how come superheroes never live in the South?

 

Regarding No. 3, sorry, but it belongs to the guy who did it first and Two-Face was flipping that coin long before No Country For Old Men was written (the book as well as the movie).

The character of Harvey Dent was created in 1942, based partially on an interpretation of Scarface and partially on Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. (Thank you, Wikipedia).

 

I saw the film last night, and thought it was phenomenal. I had really high expectations due to the fact that the first one was so good. This one filled my expectations and more. It is -- without a doubt -- the best superhero movie ever. The depth is amazing.
If we are talking about spoilers here, I was very surprised that Rachel Dawes got it. Also, I thought there was going to be a set up for Two Face to take over as Batman's top rival. Guess not.
Maybe Scarecrow. It was cool to see Cillian Murphy back again. Maybe he'll be the next bad guy. With the ending and Ledger's death, I think it's impossible to guess on another sequel. No one could ever play this Joker. I thought Ledger was fantastic in Brokeback, but this performance took his career to another level.
Based on the movies I've seen this year, he definitely deserves an Oscar nod. I debated this with some friends after the film. Do you think he'll get nominated for best actor or best supporting actor? It's hard to tell.
It would be a crime if he didn't get nominated. To me, that interrogation room scene, alone, locked it up.
As for the big prisoner on the boat, the guy who threw the device out the window, that was Tommy "Tiny" Lister.
I remember him most from Friday, a great comedy. He played the neighborhood bully.
"You got knocked the F#$% out!"

 

The numbers are in and their off the charts ...

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080720/121658682000.html

 

Alma, great observations, and I pretty much line up with you on them.

I really, really think it would have been a better film if Batman had killed the Joker, dropped him to his death at the end of that scene. It would have fit the theme of the story (Batman breaking his own rules, realizing that the "right" thing isn't always the right thing) perfectly. But obviously they were banking on Ledger returning in the role.

I've got a plot question that hopefully someone can answer. In the sequence where they have to choose between saving Rachel and saving Harvey, Batman leaves saying he's going to get Rachel. But he ends up saving Harvey, and the cops end up at Rachel's location. Are we to assume the Joker gave them the locations reversed, or did I miss something?

 

I assume Joker reversed them.

 

By the way, did you catch Dent's deal with Rachel? He tells her they are coming for her when she says only one of them will live.
Later, he tells Gordon he had to lie to Rachel, telling her everything was OK when he knew it was not.
My understanding is he knew he was getting saved. It does make more sense to save him than her, and he obviously didn't have reason to believe Batman would choose her because he didn't know about their history.

 

I took it to mean that she had resigned herself to one of them dying and he was trying to give her hope that they might both survive.

Given his reaction upon seeing Batman, I don't think he expected to be saved.

I also took that as the Joker reversing the locations. I just don't see Batman choosing Dent over Rachel.

Batman's choice not to kill the Joker is true to the character. It might not be the most satisfying ending, but I think it was a decision driven by the character and the story rather than the need to keep Joker around for a sequel.