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

Rottenwatch: THE DARK KNIGHT

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the USAToday article:

"Did anyone not know this was a violent movie about a homicidal maniac in makeup?" :lol

IMO, the rating of the movie is perfectly fine. Alot of the "brutal scenes" are psychological. Nothing is shown on screen. Alot of violence happens behind the camera. No sign of blood or gunshot wounds. Nothing.

shibby said:
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.
Click to expand...

No soup for you!
 
capslock said:
Idiot alert!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-07-20-dark-knight-no-kids_N.htm
Click to expand...


I can actually sympathize with the parents on this one. You see a superhero film rated PG-13 you expect something akin to other fantasy/action films rated PG-13. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Ironman, even Batman Begins. Dark knight went far beyond those and I do think was really close to the R rating borderline. I can understand why parents would be a bit surprised.
 
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).
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I thought the story was consistently told. Maybe you don't like The Joker?
 
Though it's PG-13, the film is extremely brutal in execution and themes, simply because of how brilliantly Nolan makes you feel uneasy within the confines of PG-13 and you don't normally don't prepare for such a thing at that rating, because of the psychological fill-in you would do and the films never slows down to do it. It's like BAM! and you're reeling with what's happening on screen and think...."Holy shit! Did he just do that?!"

It has a much different feel than the PG-13 Hancock or Spider-man, and yet it's not necessarily that much more action violent, it just feels that way with how unforgiving the movie does things. The movie felt like I was watching something higher than PG-13.

Really the film seemed like it would take another simple blood letting scene on the level that might have been okay in most PG-13 to push it over the top for someone to give an R because of it's sheer intensity. Or even something as minuscule as a F-bomb (which PG-13 are allowed to have one).
 
shagg_187 said:
Hell No. Please tell me (spoiler tagged ofcourse) the scenes that require R rating...
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think there were any. I'm just saying the MPAA is always extremely touchy about the sort of stuff that comes across as "dark" in movies. See my examples above in this same thread.

I despise the MPAA...but apparently the studio lobbied with them to keep the rating PG-13 to make some dough.

They probably complied since they're made up of studio execs anyways (have you not seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"?)
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Though it's PG-13, the film is extremely brutal in execution and themes, simply because of how brilliantly Nolan makes you feel uneasy within the confines of PG-13 and you don't normally don't prepare for such a thing at that rating, because of the psychological fill-in you would do and the films never slows down to do it. It's like BAM! and you're reeling with what's happening on screen and think...."Holy shit! Did he just do that?!"

It has a much different feel than the PG-13 Hancock or Spider-man, and yet it's not necessarily that much more action violent, it just feels that way with how unforgiving the movie does things. The movie felt like I was watching something higher than PG-13.

Really the film seemed like it would take another simple blood letting scene on the level that might have been okay in most PG-13 to push it over the top for someone to give an R because of it's sheer intensity. Or even as minuscule as one F-bomb (which PG-13 are allowed to have one).
Click to expand...

Yeah, my point exactly. Every violent scene is actually implied; it's usually never onscreen. They said the same thing about Pulp Fiction. It's really not a violent movie...just the violence is implied or suggested. Of course, another part of Pulp Fiction's rating was due to its language.

But you don't see any of that with TDK.
 
Just got back from seeing it. Damn, I'm nearly speechless.

I will never forget that pencil scene. DM you win this round, Dark Knight is the best movie I've seen this year.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
I have to disagree. I thought the story was consistently told. Maybe you don't like The Joker?
Click to expand...

No, I actually loved the Joker. His first few scenes were some of my favorite parts of the movie.

But the way that he's able to mess with Batman just grows way too rapidly. The whole big explosions to show how much of a threat he is didn't connect in the same way as the initial scenes with say for example the video did.

I also wanted to see more Bruce Wayne screen time.

I enjoyed the movie, but I think the hype has really distorted opinions. Or maybe it's just done that to me as my expectations were sky high.
 
shibby said:
No, I actually loved the Joker. His first few scenes were some of my favorite parts of the movie.

But the way that he's able to mess with Batman just grows way too rapidly. The whole big explosions to show how much of a threat he is didn't connect in the same way as the initial scenes with say for example the video did.

I also wanted to see more Bruce Wayne screen time.

I enjoyed the movie, but I think the hype has really distorted opinions. Or maybe it's just done that to me as my expectations were sky high.
Click to expand...
I dunno, seems like you wanted something slower & more progressive, really.
 
msdstc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Noticing EVERYTHING as you say is a good thing. You really start critiquing a lot of important, classic movies in a way that's kind of scary, kind of refreshing in some ways.

But yeah, I do agree there were parts of TDK that didn't quite connect: weird editing, weird acting, weird moments.

Maybe that's why I find some parts of Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Coppola's films so hard to watch. All films have flaws, they're made my people after all.

I enjoyed the movie, but I think the hype has really distorted opinions. Or maybe it's just done that to me as my expectations were sky high.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was a whole lotta hype surrounding this one, I agree. Maybe it was a combination of it being a summer blockbuster, Ledger's demise, the IMAX format, etc. I had high expectations as well, but I knew that by and large, this is just a film. It's not gonna be perfect, it's not gonna be the way I wanted it to be right away.

That's every film, even the best ones.
 
ezekial45 said:
Part - 1 http://www.batman-on-film.com/TDK_nytimes_bale-nolan_part1_7-17-08.html
Part - 2 http://www.batman-on-film.com/TDK_nytimes_bale-nolan_part2_7-20-08.html

Great Q&A session with Nolan and Bale. It's interesting to note that Bale didn't even know about the viral marketing campaign. :lol
Click to expand...

Christian Bale was honestly puzzled about all of this. Amazingly, he actually appeared to not know about any of it. He explained being in Mexico might have something to do with it but he kept asking where he could find out about it. “Where can I find it, can I Google it?” he asked. Another member of the audience gave him a web site where all the different TDK sites are listed. He appeared to be genuinely grateful for the information.
Click to expand...

:lol That is awesome.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Well, I don't think there were any. I'm just saying the MPAA is always extremely touchy about the sort of stuff that comes across as "dark" in movies. See my examples above in this same thread.

I despise the MPAA...but apparently the studio lobbied with them to keep the rating PG-13 to make some dough.

They probably complied since they're made up of studio execs anyways (have you not seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"?)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the MPAA isn't always consistent. I remember when Roger Ebert said how unfairly they rated Jackie Chan's The Legend of Drunken Master, while it has plenty of non-stop action it usually wasn't the more harder unforgiving action we get in the US for action titles that get that rating, and I completely agree, I couldn't figure how the hell they gave that title an R rating when there was slew of PG-13 films just as violent and more so, like well...The Dark Knight.

Apparently there might have been talks of it's because of Jackie drinking too much!!
 
Just saw it for a second time. God it just gets better the more you view it. I was able to pick on some things I missed that people on GAF mentioned and able to take in all the subtle nuances of Ledger's performance. This movie is just fucking brilliant.
 
While this has probably been mentioned already, it is worth mentioning again:

User ratings at IMDB is 9.7/10. The number 1 movie there with over 46 thousand votes. Wow.
 
Finally see the movie - while I don't think it will be part of the best films I've seen of all time, I do agree this is one of the best movies for 2008.

Although I know of some scenes due to spoilers or reading reviews, I'm still surprised at how shocked or how bad it got to me.

I also like the ending of the movie - it wasn't an ending like Begins where you feel good about the movie afterwards, it felt like a very pragmatic and realistic ending.

It wasn't a sad or sorrowful/bitter ending, but it is what it is and in that sense, it makes you think more of the movie than Begins.

Definitely a 9/10 movie for me and I'll see it again in IMAX for sure. :D


The Joker was truly frightening and truly there are times when I was really happy that Batman or one of the good guys wreck Joker. The guy was just so inhuman in his handling of people around him.
He really was the most sinister and chaotic facet of evil to be feared.
Aaron Eckhart was also really powerful in his performance - hopefully the DVD or Blu-ray version will have longer scenes to flesh out his transformation.
I think Maggie G did a fine job as Rachel.
 
SpeedingUptoStop said:
I dunno, seems like you wanted something slower & more progressive, really.
Click to expand...

I think it would have helped in the latter half. I thought the pacing was great up until the part where he was arrested. I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the intensity being so high constantly is good in a narrative.

I also had shitty seats in the IMAX theater so that might be affecting my opinion a bunch as well.
 
shibby said:
I think it would have helped in the latter half. I thought the pacing was great up until the part where he was arrested. I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think the intensity being so high constantly is good in a narrative.

I also had shitty seats in the IMAX theater so that might be affecting my opinion a bunch as well.
Click to expand...
I would've really liked a longer movie as well to go deeper in the details.

However, being a summer movie, I think the best Nolan was 2 and 1/2 hours.
 
Reading through the thread more thoroughly I have to touch on an argument brought up earlier.


Maggie Gyllenhaal is not attractive enough to be the target of these two studs. It did distract me for a second but the awesomeness of the movie ensured I wasn't focused on this flaw for too long. The same cannot be said of say, Spiderman, where I was quite bothered by Mary Jane's lack of appeal.

Iron Man got it right.

talladega-nights-the-ballad-of-ricky-bobby-20060804060738880_1176308477.jpg


gwyneth-adopting.jpg
 
VPhys said:
Reading through the thread more thoroughly I have to touch on an argument brought up earlier.


Maggie Gyllenhaal is not attractive enough to be the target of these two studs. It did distract me for a second but the awesomeness of the movie ensured I wasn't focused on this flaw for too long. The same cannot be said of say, Spiderman, where I was quite bothered by Mary Jane's lack of appeal.

Iron Man got it right.

talladega-nights-the-ballad-of-ricky-bobby-20060804060738880_1176308477.jpg


gwyneth-adopting.jpg
Click to expand...

This is very true. If I were to recast Rachel based on looks only...I'd probably cast Mila Kinus...she looks like Katie, but can she act hmm....
 
Funny, I can't say I really care about the chicks in these movie even if they are supposedly attractive, since I'm too into it for the film adaptation of an iconic comic book character than some random girls.
 
Enough with Rachel Dawes love/hate! :P
Katie ditched the role and Nolan wanted someone who could take over. Maggie did a great job and i can't see anyone else standing side-by-side Aaron Eckhart in that movie.

Also, the Iron Man comparison is absurd because unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark's no. 1 priority is being a playboy billionaire (and everyone knows he is Iron Man), whereas Bruce does that so that he is the least suspicious person to be Batman. It wouldn't matter if Rachel Dawes was someone ugly. Bruce loves her because he knows her ever since he was a kid and he is emotionally attached to her.
 
shagg_187 said:
Enough with Rachel Dawes love/hate! :P
Katie ditched the role and Nolan wanted someone who could take over. Maggie did a great job and i can't see anyone else standing side-by-side Aaron Eckhart in that movie.

Also, the Iron Man comparison is absurd because unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark's no. 1 priority is being a playboy billionaire (and everyone knows he is Iron Man), whereas Bruce does that so that he is the least suspicious person to be Batman. It wouldn't matter if Rachel Dawes was someone ugly. Bruce loves her because he knows her ever since he was a kid and he is emotionally attached to her.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Royale with Cheese said:
Noticing EVERYTHING as you say is a good thing. You really start critiquing a lot of important, classic movies in a way that's kind of scary, kind of refreshing in some ways.

But yeah, I do agree there were parts of TDK that didn't quite connect: weird editing, weird acting, weird moments.

Maybe that's why I find some parts of Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Coppola's films so hard to watch. All films have flaws, they're made my people after all.
Click to expand...

yeah I love how much more you notice in a movie. Sometimes it takes you out of the movie, but it makes it just that much better when it's great.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Funny, I can't say I really care about the chicks in these movie even if they are supposedly attractive, since I'm too into it for the film adaptation of an iconic comic book character than some random girls.
Click to expand...

yeah I agree.. Liv Tyler was hot in The Hulk but she still sucked..

PS damn is that the artwork for Long Halloween? Looks pretty ugly. :(
 
I've noticed a lot of people complaining about the voice of Batman and saying that it was different than in Batman Begins but it wasn't. Batman spoke differently several times as Batman and gradually moved to that raspier growl as the persona grew. There wasn't one Batman voice in Begins; there were several. It's more noticeable now because he kept the one that most people disliked (SWEAR TO MEEEEEE) and he speaks more in The Dark Knight.

It's funny but nobody ever mentions Bruce Wayne's millionaire voice, either. He speaks very differently when he is in front of more than a few people (He kind of sounds drunk, actually).
 
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...

Yeah. It was particularly awesome when Joker was holding up the knife to Rachel and telling her that other fake scar story. The camera kept circling around them close-up and it added a lot to the tension and sense of unpredictability.
 
WickedAngel said:
It's funny but nobody ever mentions Bruce Wayne's millionaire voice, either. He speaks very differently when he is in front of more than a few people (He kind of sounds drunk, actually).
Click to expand...

wasn't he pretending to be drunk in Begins to get rid of the people?
 
Kastro said:
wasn't he pretending to be drunk in Begins to get rid of the people?
Click to expand...

I think he means that as Bruce Wayne, Bale is considerably looser and more outgoing than as Batman, and he speaks in a humorously cocky tone when he's around other people.
 
WickedAngel said:
I've noticed a lot of people complaining about the voice of Batman and saying that it was different than in Batman Begins but it wasn't. Batman spoke differently several times as Batman and gradually moved to that raspier growl as the persona grew. There wasn't one Batman voice in Begins; there were several. It's more noticeable now because he kept the one that most people disliked (SWEAR TO MEEEEEE) and he speaks more in The Dark Knight.

It's funny but nobody ever mentions Bruce Wayne's millionaire voice, either. He speaks very differently when he is in front of more than a few people (He kind of sounds drunk, actually).
Click to expand...
Actually, Batman unmasked and Batman masked are totally different characters.

When he's masked, he seems so sure of his methods - regardless whether he is seen as good or evil by the people around him.
When he's unmasked, he seems doubtful and frail - like a regular human.

Compare the way he talks with Lucius Fox when he's being Bruce Wayne and being Batman. One is pretty warm and friendly, the other is cold and calculating.
 
Yeah so I just got back from watching it and...

HOLY FUCK IT WAS EPIC. I mean, I don't even like the Batman series/comics/etc but the film was amazing. So much goddamned awesome action; I was mindfucked, but in a good way.

And I can't even BEGIN to list all of the reason's why Ledger's Joker was one of the best performances I have seen in a long, long time. I'm so depressed that we will never again see a Joker that freaking good.

I used to despise you Dark Knight fanatics but consider me a convert now! MUST SEE AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN.
 
Hootie said:
Yeah so I just got back from watching it and...

HOLY FUCK IT WAS EPIC. I mean, I don't even like the Batman series/comics/etc but the film was amazing. So much goddamned awesome action; I was mindfucked, but in a good way.

And I can't even BEGIN to list all of the reason's why Ledger's Joker was one of the best performances I have seen in a long, long time. I'm so depressed that we will never again see a Joker that freaking good.

I used to despise you Dark Knight fanatics but consider me a convert now! MUST SEE AGAIN. AND AGAIN. AND AGAIN.
Click to expand...

There's no other film I can recall where I've seen anywhere near this many people saying that they're going to or have already gone to see repeats.

Almost everyone is like "yeah, I've already seen it twice and might go again next weekend."
 
I thought it was too long.

I thought the plotting and twists were excellent.

I FUCKING HATE BATMAN VOICE.

I thought Harvey was better than the reviews have claimed.

I almost choked on my coke when the Joker said to Gyllenhal, "You are beautiful," and almost blurted out, "no she's not."

I thought it looked too much like Chicago to the detriment of an imagined Gotham.
 
I hope all this talk about how ugly Maggie Gyllenhal is only because TDK is simply set at such a high standard that every aspect of it should be near perfect.

Otherwise, it's getting pretty disturbing.
 
Totakeke said:
I hope all this talk about how ugly Maggie Gyllenhal is only because TDK is simply set at such a high standard that every aspect of it should be near perfect.

Otherwise, it's getting pretty disturbing.
Click to expand...


Honestly, she looks really, really weird up there. Like a sad faced, slightly spent soccer mom who has been crying because she realizes she'll never be young again and her marriage is a farce. Also, the makeup on her first scene was atrocious. She looked puffy and tired and frankly, kind of melted.
 
Just saw it (already LTTP?)
I do agree that this is probably the best serious treatment to a superhero on film.
But by setting it sights high it also hit the glass ceiling of the source material smack in its face -
For a movie that revolves around crime, it takes a beyond simplistic and reactionary approach to its subject matter.
Now I wasn't expecting any serious social discussion from my summer blockbusters, but the movie just throw it straight at my face, and it does a pretty poor job at it.

It could have been a brilliant action movie, but it's dragged down by misplaced aspiration for a morality tale that just doesn't work, and quite honestly, plays like something out of creative writing 101.

And it's a shame, because there's considerable talent on display there (not a huge fan of Nolan, but outside some stupid rotating cameras dialog scenes he stay out of the way, and he got pretty damn good at directing big action scenes) and one cannot help but wonder if that talent was not better served channeled to a more mature source material (or alternatively, have fun with its silliness).

So yeah, being able to make a half burned former DA who kills peopled based on chance into a quasi-realistic character is a pretty impressive feat, but why bother?
 
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