Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Dark Knight review: Gutted

Yuwipi Woman said:
I thought it didn't live up to the hype, but I doubt if any movie could live up to the buildup this one got. In all, it was an entertaining way to spend 2.3 hrs. Well worth my $9.
Click to expand...

I'm lucky, I suppose. I haven't been watching much tv, so, other than the fact that Heath Ledger is dead, I don't know much about the move, even now. I hope to get to see it shortly.
 
mk12 said:
The acting was excellent, from Oldman, Ledger and the Dent character. Bale didn't really play the main role in this one, but did the job.

The sound was fine, I heard every single word. The bit at the end was loud because it was climaxing towards the final moments.

There was more than one plot line, boo hoo to those who can't cope with this.

There were comedy moments where people in the audience were laughing. The Joker's magic trick at the beginning was both funny and disgusting.

Stop whinging.
Click to expand...
Actually there wasn't more than one plotline, there was just no need to shoehorn in one of Batman's other main foes: Two Face.

It was just confused in it's direction and delivery. The film was too long, really. I agree largely with Mark Kermode's review.

Problem with superhero movies is that the more highbrow and 'dark' you try to make them, the more contrived it becomes. That's just the nature of the beast since we are dealing with people in rubber and capes. That's why I liked the Burton movies because they embraced that absurdity. These two films lack that, and, where BB had a definite focus, this kinda doesn't. BB also worked because it was a more personal movie; TDK tries to be more thematic in dealing with 'current events' (ie terrorism) and so gets a bit more contrived. It's a superhero movie,I don't really need a lecture on torture and terrorism (especially from characters who thus behave pretty stupidly).

It's still a good film, but it could have been better edited and tighter. Instead it moves around too much, failing to focus on its main character (well, Batman), andstumbles on it's own message.
 
Awesome Wells said:
Actually there wasn't more than one plotline, there was just no need to shoehorn in one of Batman's other main foes: Two Face.

.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you , the whole harvey dent / two face device was pretty essential , I like the way the Joker changed him from being ' gothams white knite ' to become a twisted ' dark knight ' which brings a whole new level to the films name :)
 
I understand that, but in so doing they reduce one of Batman's main enemies to nothing. That doesn't sit riht with me. Plus it was a rather contrived descent into madness; it's not really believable that he becomes utterly psychotic. Not only does he refuse all surgery to his face, but he completely blames all the people who tried to save Rachel, even though they saved him, while he remains utterly blind to the fact that he's been manipulated by the Joker. So it's a little far fetched - and then he just gets sacked by Batman at the end and, well, game over (well perhaps...who knows!)
 
Awesome Wells said:
I understand that, but in so doing they reduce one of Batman's main enemies to nothing. That doesn't sit riht with me. Plus it was a rather contrived descent into madness; it's not really believable that he becomes utterly psychotic.
Click to expand...
Quite right, he should have walked out of that hospital thinking 'Well, the love of my life is dead and half of my face has been melted, but still, life goes on, eh?'
 
it's officially the best film ever on IMDB after 135,443 votes.
Rotten Tomatoes has given it 95%.

gee...some people just love a good whinge on u75.
 
i also loved the 'realism' in that movie.

it just all of the other superhero stuff is way too polished and cartoony, ie, hulk, iron man, x men etc.

batman was vulnerable as fuck.
he actually got hurt and the death count in this film was huge!!
 
Alex B said:
Quite right, he should have walked out of that hospital thinking 'Well, the love of my life is dead and half of my face has been melted, but still, life goes on, eh?'
Click to expand...
or, he gets out of hospital and doesn't blame Gordon's kids for Rachel's death.

His madness was nothing of the kind; he just came across as a sulky kid with a fetish for flipping a coin. It wasn't insanity it was calculated.
 
What like everyone who loses a loved one or gets horribly scarred becomes a schizoid killer with a comicbook schtick?

It just stretched things a bit too far and was a waste of a great Batman villain.
 
Awesome Wells said:
or, he gets out of hospital and doesn't blame Gordon's kids for Rachel's death.
Click to expand...


i think youre missing the point , he doesnt blame Gordons kids for her death , he blames Gordon and wants him to know what it feels like to tell your loved ones that it was going to be ok when it really isnt ;)
 
I'm sure this was originally going to be the first of two films made together with the first focusing on the joker and the second on Two face. Maybe two face was just lying really still at the end.
 
I am not a fan of the comics, but I know that this films portrayl of Two Face must have been incorrect, and not in keeping with the original stories. Harvey Dent was only two face for a few days? I don't think so.

It's a shame they killed him off. They should have just made it so he went missing.
 
Wookey said:
I watched The Dark Knight last night on an imax screen after months and months of patient waiting and gleeful anticipation. Sadly, I have to report that claims of brilliance, legendary magnificence and stupendous fabulousness are (as surely we all knew they would be?) greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Well done. You've reviewed another summer blockbuster like its a serious movie, rather than a comic-book film with plot-holes you can drive the Batmobile through...

Its an ok film, Heath Ledger is rather good, and its the first half-decent Batman film since the first one...
 
I went in expecting to be disappointed and came out really happy with it. It exceeded my expectations and I'd happily go and see it again.

I thought Gary Oldman was excellent in it, Heath Ledger deserves all the praise he's getting for a brilliantly observed, sinister performance full of facial mannerisms, tics etc. - all the proper psycho stuff.

Bale's "Batman voice" is fucking annoying as hell though! Not spoiling anything but the nurse bit was absolutely iconic stuff.
 
Nurse bit was great :D

I ignored the naysayers who were trouncing the film and really enjoyed it. I did not feel it dragged. Not at one point was I bored or not actually taking note of what was going on. Have to agree with the comment on Bale's Batman Voice, little bit to try hard if you ask me.
 
Yeah, re: the pace, it never seemed to lag at all. I was totally enthralled throughout, which has very much not been the case during Superman, Spiderman I,II & III etc. etc.

About his voice, obviously the idea is to disguise his real voice and all that but....come on!
 
Well I'm just glad I didn't speak to you before I went to see it then cos, yeah, he completely, completely does. What an actor though; I know it's an actor's job and all that but he was completely convincing in this and equally completely convincing in, say, True Romance at completely the other end of the spectrum.

I'm actually giving him props on facebook as we speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
Celebrities in the Dark - C4 📺
Replies
11
Views
535
Epona
Epona
D
Moon Knight
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
ruffneck23
ruffneck23
DaveCinzano
Post your FILM REVIEWS for shit movies!
Replies
23
Views
855
furluxor
furluxor
Cloo
Ben Shapiro film reviews
Replies
7
Views
424
Cloo
Cloo
Badgers
Knight Rider
Replies
8
Views
453
purves grundy
purves grundy
Back
Top Bottom