• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: THE DARK KNIGHT

Status
Not open for further replies.
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Yeah, very very stupid release date Universal. One week away from the biggest release of the year for a comic adaptation also?! That's brilliant!!
Click to expand...

Universal is run by a bunch of morons. This is no surprise.
 
Maggot9 said:
Just saw it. It was ok. Joker was definitely the best part of the movie. Editing was horrible. Batman's voice was LOL.
Click to expand...


Least we know Bale will have work after Batman.

cookiemonster.jpg
 
Maggot9 said:
Just saw it. It was ok. Joker was definitely the best part of the movie. Editing was horrible. Batman's voice was LOL.
Click to expand...


I just came back, saw it for the first time. (How can anyone watch a movie 3-4 times within a week? What are we five?)

I quoted Maggot because I think his tone matches up with my reaction to the movie. I enjoyed it, but it just hasn't hit me like most people.


Until I settle this all out in my head, I'll say one thing---I loved the Harvey Dent character, what a nice surprise.
 
I don't understand the the hate towards Bale voice. THAT's Batman. Again, THAT'S how the shit is supposed to go. I agree that when he talks for more than a few sentences, it's weird, but that's because Batman isn't supposed to talk for that long, period.
 
TheGrayGhost said:
I don't understand the the hate towards Bale voice. THAT's Batman. Again, THAT'S how the shit is supposed to go. I agree that when he talks for more than a few sentences, it's weird, but that's because Batman isn't supposed to talk for that long, period.
Click to expand...

i like the voice, but i hate the argument that "That's how it's supposed to be".

who gives a shit if it's true to the source material. if they don't like it, they don't like it.
 
I saw it on Friday. I was actually thinking about not seeing it because ever since I saw Spider-man 1 in the theatre, every single movie I've watched has been interupted by a crying child. It didn't matter what movie I went to see. For example, I saw a late night showing of Saw 2 and a woman brought her 5 children, all less than 7-8 years of age. Its been a streak of like 10 movies that have been ruined. Once, the crying even led to fist fight. I hadn't been to the movies in over a year prior to TDK. Spider-man 3 was the last movie I saw and in addition to the movie being terrible it was once again ruined by someone's crying children. I was really looking forward to seeing TDK but I didn't want it to be ruined either. Before the movie started I was looking through the audience for small children hoping not to see any. I didn't, and all was quiet during the previews (which there were several). About 2 minutes into the movie, it happened....a toddler started crying. You could not imagine how I was feeling at that moment. And then the unthinkable happened....the father actually picked the child up and carried it out of the theatre AND NEVER RETURNED!! I was then able to watch the movie in peace. Ladies and gentlemen, Batman broke the Spider-man curse!!!! I was so happy. Finally someone was considerate!

About the movie...Ledger was terrific. At first I wasn't sure if his performance would live up to the hype but as the movie went on his Joker got better and better. I thought Eckhart did a really good job as Dent and Two-Face. I loved how Two-Face looked. I thought it was spot on. The movie ended the exact opposite way I would have expected (I had assumed Joker would die and Two-Face would live for the sequel). Man it really sucks about Ledger, I would have loved to see him come back to reprise the role. I wonder if they will even bother bringing the Joker back now, played by a different actor. It doesn't seem likely that anyone could fill Ledger's shoes in the role.

The two things I didn't like about the movie were Batman's voice (almost laughably bad) and the re-casting of Rachael. I hate it when that happens anyway but I really think re-casting was a mistake here because I felt it took away from what happens to the character later in the film. Had it been the same actress, i.e. someone more familiar, I feel it would have had an even greater impact.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've gotta agree about the "cinema-experience". There were so many giggly teens when I went Friday night, I wanted to wallop someone. I probably would've gone to jail. But I wanted to see TDK. Two little nubiles beside me were too busy texting their friends who weren't at the show (or might've been at another movie, idk) that they were asking each other what just happened on the screen.

Watch the goddamn movie. You came here to do so, watch. Listen. Learn. Or leave.

If there were any crying babies in the place, I probably would've walked out and demanded a refund. You don't bring cell phones, fussy babies/toddlers, or effin' retarded significant others to a film like TDK. If it's got plot, these people might as well skip it. Go see Space Chimps for christ's sake.

About the whole Rachel Dawes thing, Katie Holmes refused to come back. Therefore, she should be replaced. That was the deal with the casting issue. IMO, Holmes should've never been in the first one anyway. She did not impress me whatsoever.

Another thing, Bale did a great job with Batman's voice. Batman's inner evil is implied with that sinister, raspy voice. If you found it laughable, that's your opinion. But let's put things in perspective...would you rather have nipples on the batsuit or Bale's scratchy voice?

Think about that one for a second.
 
Maggot9 said:
Just saw it. It was ok. Joker was definitely the best part of the movie. Editing was horrible. Batman's voice was LOL.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I said the exact thing earlier in this thread. Somebody thought it would be up for best editing though! I couldn't believe that... it was plagued by the same problem as the first one with some extremely shitty editing. Can you cite specific examples?
 
Maggot9 said:
Music sucked, as well.
Click to expand...

Well I definitely disagree there :(.

I also am on the bale defense force here. How else could he have done the voice? I mean I get where you are coming from, but that's how it was with Keaton also if I remember. It's strange, but it's true to the source.
 
Dear god, the sundays showing locally was all sold out. I think this movie will make more than the 155 million that's projected. There's such a high demand for it. It's insane. And i've still only watched it once. =( Want to watch it again so badly but the best theater is 30 minutes away and nobody would go with me until tuesday. Damn it all to hell
 
Just saw it. It was ok. Joker was definitely the best part of the movie. Editing was horrible. Batman's voice was LOL.
Click to expand...

As an editor, I thought the editing was flawless. The pacing was brilliant, great storytelling. I do admit that Bale's raspy voice as Batman was a bit far-fetched at times, but you gotta remember that Batman is Bruce Wayne's superego and that somewhere in Batman's psyche, there's gotta be an 'id'.

That's the voice you heard, whether you liked it or not. What do you want it to sound like? Marge Simpson? Chappelle's Rick James impression? Mickey Mouse?

Next.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
As an editor, I thought the editing was flawless. The pacing was brilliant, great storytelling. I do admit that Bale's raspy voice as Batman was a bit far-fetched at times, but you gotta remember that Batman is Bruce Wayne's superego and that somewhere in Batman's psyche, there's gotta be an 'id'.

That's the voice you heard, whether you liked it or not. What do you want it to sound like? Marge Simpson? Chappelle's Rick James impression?
Click to expand...

Wait how are you an editor and didn't notice the flaws?

edit- to me a noob just do it for fun editor, I noticed several times where transitions or reaction shots were not connected in anyway to the scene. I could cite examples, but the defense force is locked and loaded:lol
 
Raguel said:
I didn't notice any detrimental flaws in the editing at all either.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying editing down the movie... which was done wonderfully. I'm saying cuttin/transitions/reaction shots. There were quite a few that didn't flow.
 
Wait how are you an editor and didn't notice the flaws?
Click to expand...

When you say flaws, please cite examples. I might or might not agree with them. This whole "Ah, the editing sucked...the acting sucked" aesthetic is retarded.

Examples, please.

I thought, first off, the editing was perfect. You edit to tell a story. You cut certain parts of a scene that don't work, extend things that do work. But you do it all "to tell the story".

Some bad editing examples would be:

1) most of Spiderman 3
2) Transformers (by hack, Michael Bay)
3) any B-movie in history
 
Royale with Cheese said:
When you say flaws, please cite examples. I might or might not agree with them. This whole "Ah, the editing sucked...the acting sucked" aesthetic is retarded.

Examples, please.

I thought, first off, the editing was perfect. You edit to tell a story. You cut certain parts of a scene that don't work, extend things that do work. But you do it all "to tell the story".

Some bad editing examples would be:

1) most of Spiderman 3
2) Transformers (by hack, Michael Bay)
3) any B-movie in history
Click to expand...

Look above. If you want specific examples cited, glad to do it.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
As an editor, I thought the editing was flawless. The pacing was brilliant, great storytelling. I do admit that Bale's raspy voice as Batman was a bit far-fetched at times, but you gotta remember that Batman is Bruce Wayne's superego and that somewhere in Batman's psyche, there's gotta be an 'id'.

That's the voice you heard, whether you liked it or not. What do you want it to sound like? Marge Simpson? Chappelle's Rick James impression? Mickey Mouse?

Next.
Click to expand...

Not to mention if he were to speak normally, his cover would be sort of blown.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Again, examples?
Click to expand...

ok, it doesn't work unless you're watching of course but here are 2 examples fresh in my mind, that REALLY jumped out at me.

opening scene with the fake batmans and scarecrow... at one part the real batman jumps up and grabs onto a van, they didn't cut the shot short enough so you see batmans feet come down to the ground and almost as if he screwed up in the take. In the next shot he's held up on to the car perfectly. You can 100 % tell it's another shot, which is never supposed to happen. It's supposed to flow like it's happening in realtime, but I don't have to tell you that. like I said you'll have to watch to see.

and then

the ending scene where Harvey/Batman fall. I can't explain it exactly, but it is incredibly rough. You don't really see them falling, or see them land they just appear on the ground next to eachother. it was an extremely poor choice of angles/transitions, that did not flow properly, and the way they were laying was inconsistent

It wasn't TERRIBLE, but there were plenty of parts where I was like... holy shit that was some awful editing. It happened way more in the first one, mostly with the sound problems though. If I can notice multiple times throughout a movie some seriously bad editing I consider it almost half assed. If you watch like said earlier B movies and such it happens VERY often.
 
irfan said:
Those are examples? :lol There are 439 reaction shots in the movie, which one are you referring to?
Click to expand...

You read it wrong. I was saying "if you want specific examples... I will cite them". So don't jump down my throat. I posted 2 examples.
 
I do admit that
the whole "ferries scene" could've been a little different...but this was Nolan's vision, his story. His goal was to get across the timidness of the two groups of people, something you can't very well simplify too much without losing track of the story.
I do agree that some of the two-shots/reactions were a little "glib" in some ways.

I also thought the
cut-aways during Harvey Dent's "always darkest before the dawn" speech were a little "glib" as well. Especially when the cop yells out, "No more killing cops!"

That could've been reworked or cut out altogether as well. But everything else was in its right place.

Hope I didn't sound too condescending in my exchange with you msdstc...I just believe one should back up their statements. But I do agree that these two particular scenes were a bit too long.

Everything else, masterpiece. And that's all that matters...that the work as a whole comes together, effectively tells the story, and moves/speaks to the audience.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
I do admit that the whole "ferries scene" could've been a little different...but this was Nolan's vision, his story. His goal was to get across the timidness of the two groups of people, something you can't very well simplify too much without losing track of the story. I do agree that some of the two-shots/reactions were a little "glib" in some ways.

I also thought the cut-aways during Harvey Dent's "always darkest before the dawn" speech were a little "glib" as well. Especially when the cop yells out, "No more killing cops!"

That could've been reworked or cut out altogether as well. But everything else was in its right place.

Hope I didn't sound too condescending in my exchange with you msdstc...I just believe one should back up their statements. But I do agree that these two particular scenes were a bit too long.

Everything else, masterpiece. And that's all that matters...that the work as a whole comes together, effectively tells the story, and moves/speaks to the audience.
Click to expand...

Hey no, you were actually civil about it, which is great. I agree with you about "no more killing cops" that was the closest thing in the movie that brought me to cringing... it felt very forced, but it wasn't AWFUL. I wish I had the movie though to cite specific reaction shots that just didn't work. I mean they COULD'VE worked, but things weren't synced up properly.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Another thing, Bale did a great job with Batman's voice. Batman's inner evil is implied with that sinister, raspy voice. If you found it laughable, that's your opinion. But let's put things in perspective...would you rather have nipples on the batsuit or Bale's scratchy voice?

Think about that one for a second.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Thing is, I thought he did a much better job in Begins with the voice (all except for the "FEAR ME" line). I just thought it was a little over-the-top in this one. There were times where it was so raspy I could barely make out what he was saying.
 
opening scene with the fake batmans and scarecrow... at one part the real batman jumps up and grabs onto a van, they didn't cut the shot short enough so you see batmans feet come down to the ground and almost as if he screwed up in the take. In the next shot he's held up on to the car perfectly. You can 100 % tell it's another shot, which is never supposed to happen. It's supposed to flow like it's happening in realtime, but I don't have to tell you that. like I said you'll have to watch to see.

and then

the ending scene where Harvey/Batman fall. I can't explain it exactly, but it is incredibly rough. You don't really see them falling, or see them land they just appear on the ground next to eachother. it was an extremely poor choice of angles/transitions, that did not flow properly, and the way they were laying was inconsistent
Click to expand...

Ok, these are very good examples. I agree that the last one probably could've been avoided by setting up another shot of them falling. But you see them fall...you know they fall. You really don't have to see every little moment during a fall. That's a stylistic choice made by the director. If you remember, this guy directed The Prestige, which really never showed every little nuance (seeing as it was a movie about magicians and deception).

About the van scene...I found nothing wrong with that. There's plenty of films that make transitional/point-of-view switches all the time. It's an effect to sort of disorient the viewer for a moment. Whether it was intentional or not, I can't say. But it did appear to be again, a stylistic choice.
 
Anybody love how the camera kept circling at times? Happened a lot at the party and maybe once or twice during the interrogation.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Ok, these are very good examples. I agree that the last one probably could've been avoided by setting up another shot of them falling. But you see them fall...you know they fall. You really don't have to see every little moment during a fall. That's a stylistic choice made by the director. If you remember, this guy directed The Prestige, which really never showed every little nuance (seeing as it was a movie about magicians and deception).

About the van scene...I found nothing wrong with that. There's plenty of films that make transitional/point-of-view switches all the time. It's an effect to sort of disorient the viewer for a moment. Whether it was intentional or not, I can't say. But it did appear to be again, a stylistic choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah with the ending shot I get what he was going for, but I have to say disagree with it. Also like I said
the way they were laying just seemed inconsistent for how they fell

I think I know what you're saying about the van, almost like a time lapse. I'll pay more attention when I see it again very soon.

PS, you might wanna delete out that quote, for some reason it didn't spoiler up the stuff when you quoted it.
 
Hey no, you were actually civil about it, which is great. I agree with you about "no more killing cops" that was the closest thing in the movie that brought me to cringing... it felt very forced, but it wasn't AWFUL. I wish I had the movie though to cite specific reaction shots that just didn't work. I mean they COULD'VE worked, but things weren't synced up properly.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm an amateur editor for my own stuff as well. I'm not a pro or anything. I just see certain things in films differently the more I edit things down myself. I think (a) Nolan didn't wanna keep action scenes too constrained and (b) partly because his director of photography Wally Pfister has a very documentary-style of shooting.

I'm sure they knew there would be editing mistakes. There's at least 15-20 in every film, whether you plan them or not. There were a few of those pesky "cringe moments"...sometimes I felt Aaron Eckhart was being a little "hammy" in scenes, maybe?

Maybe it was just me. I like subtlety.

But my favorite scenes outweighed those cringe moments. I'll go see it again with some friends and my wife probably this week; I'll see what they thought, and of course, get a second, more relaxed viewing.
 
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Anybody love how the camera kept circling at times? Happened a lot at the party and maybe once or twice during the interrogation.
Click to expand...

omg I LOVED that. Glad somebody pointed that out. Have you heard of the 180 rule in filming? It jars the audience to do more than a 180 degree shot, but if done properly or stylistically it comes out well, and it was perfect. Every time I saw a shot like that I thought it was perfect.
 
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Anybody love how the camera kept circling at times? Happened a lot at the party and maybe once or twice during the interrogation.
Click to expand...

i loved that on the rooftop scene with batman/gordon/oldman
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Hey, I'm an amateur editor for my own stuff as well. I'm not a pro or anything. I just see certain things in films differently the more I edit things down myself. I think (a) Nolan didn't wanna keep action scenes too constrained and (b) partly because his director of photography Wally Pfister has a very documentary-style of shooting.

I'm sure they knew there would be editing mistakes. There's at least 15-20 in every film, whether you plan them or not.
Click to expand...

Same here man! I make short films of my own. It started small with my first (terrible) short film, which was just really us messing around with angles/continuity. I would see a small problem here and there. As time went on I started noticing EVERYTHING, whether it was if an object moved, reaction shots, consistency, etc. It actually hurts the viewing of those B movies you were talking about.
 
Yeah, PG-13 means "No children under 13 years old admitted without an adult"...an adult should know that a film called "The Dark Knight" is gonna have some dark elements to it
(e.g. Batman imposter in a noose, pencil scene, etc.)
even though the majority of those "dark moments" were implied.

The pencil scene was merely implied...the guy wasn't shown with a no. 2 sticking in his forehead.

Remember, there was really no blood in this film. Nor Begins for that matter. So what are they crying about?

You got the internet at your fingertips, lady. Use it, then decide whether your brat should see it.

They're gonna get it from somewhere one day anyway.
 
I hate saying this because I was looking forward to the movie for so long, but I actually preferred Batman Begins.

I liked the Dark Knight, and thought the first half was perfect, but the second half was just too much. The Joker was too powerful and there wasn't a solid build up, it just felt really unsatisfying (except for the very last part which was incredibly well done).

Ledger was great, but I found myself even more impressed by Eckhart, that was a damn good performance and very well developed character.

Great movie, but not worthy of the accolades that have been thrown at it IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
692
CGNoire replied
Good dark fantasy animes along the lines of Berserk?
34
2K
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms trailer (Game of Thrones spinoff)
2
59
2K
AJUMP23 replied
In the Dark Knight Franchise: Does Bruce have any defense against embezzlement (spoilers for the Dark Knight series)
17
2K
Raven117 replied
Game of Thrones getting a new spinoff: A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms. Premieres January.
5 6 7 8 9
426
6K
DrFigs replied
Top Bottom