The Official Dark Knight BR Review and Discussion Thread (This is NOT for PQ) - Page 15

I also preferred many aspects of Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. However, both are must haves for HD for me, partially because of their place in HD history.

Batman Begins' hammer scene at the end of the movie was the catalyst for fixing HD DVD audio sync issues. I had noticed it in many movies, but many people weren't convinced... until they saw that scene. It was one of the key movies that Microsoft used to fix the sync on the Xbox 360. Moot though now that the format is dead though.

The Dark Knight's claim to HD history is the collection of Imax sequences. Although the BD is not OAR, it highlights the immense image quality possible for live action movies on BD. The image quality of those scenes is just stunning, and I think it will lead to many more impressive Imax scenes on Hollywood flicks in the theatre, and on BD as well.

Not minor to me - it took me right out of the moment. The copter crash was lame too - not up to the standards of the film in general. I think they just needed a cut to show off the crash and that's what they came up with.

I'm only replying because I'm glad to see someone sticking up for BB. For me it's easily the better movie, and if you take Heath out of TDK you don't have a lot left. Something I've been thinking about, is how often the second film in a trilogy is the sucky one. Since TDK is still a worthy effort and worth owning (for Ledger's performance if nothing else) and since you can't judge the second film accurately until the third is out ... B3 should be amazing

This is symptomatic of the problems that I had with the film also. In a way, it reminds me of the same misgivings I had with The Prestige.

In both of these movies, characters needed to do specific things in order for the plot to advance. They are given some primary motivations for some amazingly elaborate plans. And, while the plans are complex, they seem to be very dependant on their otherwise intelligent adversaries acting in very predictable ways, which they do in the film.

We see that throughout the movie, starting with the bank robbery scene and continuing until the end.

It ends up feeling gimmicky, with the ABC's of the plot dictating character's actions rather than creating living, breathing characters creating the plot.

Scott

A bit off topic, but has anyone else noticed the similarity to Bale's Batman voice to Clint Eastwood's in his new movie Gran Torino?

I wonder if one did some voice over work for the other? It seems like there could be some comedic dubbing of one soundtrack over the other.

Scott

TDK minus the Harvey Dent story would be far superior, imo. With that cluttering up everything else, I think it barely edges out BB--and only b/c of Ledger's Joker.

Up until about two days ago, I firmly believed that while great, Ledger doesn't deserve an Oscar for this. I changed my opinion after my GF commented that she can't bear to watch TDK anymore b/c Ledger is so profoundly disturbing to her. She's sensitive and has suffered through depression in the best, and this Joker cuts into her in a deeply personal way.

I'm reminded of how annoyed I was when Sharon Stone was nominated for her character in Casino. "But she pissed me off so much! I wanted to throttle her to death!!" I barked at the TV. Then it sunk in: "Ohhhhh.."

I haven't seen any of the current, season-release contenders (hopefully catch a few over the next week), but there really hasn't been another performance that I've seen this year that has drawn such an individual reaction from people. I'm firmly in the Ledger boat for now. The question is...would they put him up for actor or supporting actor? I guess his role calls for supporting, but he really stole that film. Maybe if Keaton were in Bale's place there could be some debate, but it seems the Joker is the real catalyst of the plot.

I don't think the majority of these plans were meant to be taken so literally. I can't fathom Gordon willingly pretending to be shot, or the Joker willingly devise this elaborate scheme to get himself caught. It's silly....and unforgivable.

What's perfectly acceptable, is understanding that these characters are formidable opponents of one another. I see no reason why one can't accept that having been shot, Gordon then develops this strategy to go after the Joker. Dent wasn't a part of it at all, as seems clear. His putting himself in that position was a spur of the moment announcement at the press conference. I think Gordon uses this behind the scenes as the opportunity they're looking for.

Likewise, the Joker has contingencies. yeah, Gordon comes to some realization that this was his scheme all along, but it's just as logical to think that the Joker has his escape planned before he gets captured--in case he's captured. The other kidnappings don't rely on his being in jail to work to their full effect. He could just as easily phone in the plot. ...But that's not cinematic. The story works better when he's in jail. It's not forced; but it's no less logical to accept that these people are working with what they get than it is to assume these elaborate plots were conceived and initiated successfully, concurrently with opposing schemes, and completely dependent on each individual aspect working out perfectly. Remember, both Gordon/Dent's scheme to capture the Joker would depend completely on the Joker's scheme to be caught and escape not only working, but, well, existing. This would assume each party knew of the other's plot....now, really...isn't that a bit ridiculous?

I tend to agree. it seems quite unnecessary. The only reason he's there is to draw attention to the driver, who as we soon discover, is Gordon back from the dead.

When I first saw this, the driver's silence and seeming indifference to the SWAT guy's suggestions made me think the driver was one of Joker's men. Added a bit to the tension. The sole purpose, I think, is to establish the driver as a character. The camera spends as much time on this masked Gordon as it does on his companion and the inane dialogue. It makes the reveal of Gordon an added peak in tension.

In a way, it even established Gordon as the true mastermind of Justice in Gotham. He just used the two top heroes, Batman and Dent, as mere pawns in the capture of the city's supreme villain. It shows why, more than any other person, he should be Commissioner.

I have no idea at what point the faked death of Gordon was planned. They knew it was likely that an attempt would be made against the Mayor's life, and Gordon was right up there with him. Maybe it was planned at that point, or maybe after he was carted off. But, why make him the driver of the transport vehicle later? Is Gordon the most skilled driver on the Gotham police force? Maybe he was the only one that could be trusted? But, with his identity disguised, wouldn't some of the other officers be suspicious? How would the "mystery driver" be explained to those guys?

Or was it just to make the audience think that the driver could be one of the Joker's henchmen?

That whole sequence doesn't make any sense to me. We figure that both sides had a plan to trap the other, but I can't imagine what those plans might have been. That includes the guy that the Joker planted the bomb inside of. Was he actually the contingency plan? That would depend on so many things going right - the guy had to live, be taken to the station with him, not kept in the same cell with him, not taken to the hospital when he complained of a stomach ache, nobody noticing the scars until it was too late, being able to make the phone call at just the right time, etc.

Going back to the beginning of the film, the Joker has planned out another complex set of events to rob a bank. It almost looks like he will meet his end, when by surprise, a bus crashed through the wall at the exact time and place required to eliminate his would-be killer. This is how contrived most of the film's plotting came off to me.

Take all the Joker's plans and the dependencies required to make them work, and it leads one to believe that the Joker is either: A) A total mastermind that has virtually every eventuality planned for and can adapt those complex plans almost instantly; or B) He's just really, really lucky. Neither one make for a very believable or interesting villain or storyline.

Scott

One more thing...did anyone else feel that the Joker's plan regarding the Ferry Boat seemed odd? I have always felt that the way that scene unfolded was so unrealistic. I just think that on two boats full of hundreds of people--one boat of convicts and one boat of civilians--that there would be at least one or two a-holes that would bum rush the person with the detonator.

I just kept watching this scene, and they have a whole hour (I think) to decide. The idea that not a single person is willing to push the detonator to save themselves has always come across as unrealistic. I in no way think that people would be eager to kill others on another boat, but I just feel that people (especially the civilians) on the boat would be more concerned with their well being than of a stranger (who also is given the same option and might blow you sky high if you don't act soon).

For me, that scene would've worked better if both boats were full of civilians. But the idea that not one person would rush to push the detonator and kill a bunch of murderers, rapists, and get the opportunity to save their own lives always came across as odd. Again, I don't think it would be an easy decision, but after a while, I think human survival begins to kick in when you know it's a "him or me" situation.

One noticeable and commendable thing about Christian Bale is his humility. He said numerous times that The Dark Knight's real star is Heath Ledger and his amazing performance. "It's his show" were his exact words.

That's like saying you won't give any praise to Little Caesar's pizza for best value in America because your next door neighbor is lactose intolerant.

I'm not trying to be mean when I say anything, and I have never been ill of depression either (bless her soul that she is fighting the good fight), but I wouldn't let a movie get to me too much. I'm bi-racial and have witnessed every black hate movie out there, and in the end (unless it's based on a true story), the movie shouldn't get to me personally. Perhaps emotionally, but only because the context of the movie. However, that also shouldn't affect the way you think that Heath performed in the movie, which was nothing short of stellar IMO.

Like they say in the film (not the exact quote though): if we're not dead yet, that's also because the other boat hasn't killed us either...

Maybe you already know this page, but in case you don't, it's really worth reading... HERE

Well, that would have removed the obvious opportunity for the movie to issue a commentary on the righteousness of human beings, eh? If it happened your way, we would have been robbed of the demonstration that convicts are more well-reasoned than we expect, and regular civilians are more judgmental than we expect (personally, it seems gratuitously contrived, but that's why I refer to it as an opportunity for politically correct commentary ).

I get the message that the Joker was setting up, though, and I can actually buy into it to a degree- that, between convicts and civilians, we are more similar than we like to admit. Both of them can be just as conniving and backstabbing. The chief difference is that the convict will do so under full realization of his dark nature, while the civilian will do so out of piousness.

I'm pretty sure that Heath will be nominated for Supporting Actor, since Batman (Christian Bale) is the protagonist and gets first billing in TDK. Besides, after seeing The Wrestler, Mickey Rourke is gonna be a shoe in for Best Actor.

this isn't one example. plenty of people react very strongly to imagery--some can't stomach gratuitous violence or inherently disturbing images. The same woman grew up watching war films, and tends to find those the most enjoyable. At the same time, she is profoundly disturbed by this character, where other similar types have had no effect.

It's to each his own, so there's no reason for you to start some meaningless pissing match regarding your personal history vs. the one I relate--It's completely pointless. This wasn't about how you feel when watching movies--the point was about how this performance can, and has affected others. The reason people win these awards for acting is because they are able to affect certain emotional reactions, whether explicit or unconscious.

I saw Cadillac Records the other day, which as you might imagine, was in a theater mostly populated with African Americans. During the scene when Little Walter is beaten by the cops, one older lady in the theater screamed out in terror. She was literally tortured by each bash of his head into the car. So, it's clear to me that not all escaped their past experiences with the stone exterior and cold response that you have managed. Seriously, just because you wouldn't "let a movie get to you" doesn't make your comment any more relevant than mine, if we use your argument. And why shouldn't it effect how you feel? Actors are considered failures, or at least merely adequate, when they are incapable of producing such emotional responses. Sure, some roles don't demand any serious reaction, but his does. And he clearly achieved that.

You may not be aware of the types of desires film creators have regarding their work and how the audience perceives it, and that's fine. I am. I can guarantee you that an audience member being somewhat unsettled, to perhaps visibly shaken by this character is considered nothing less than successful.

Before we "rush overboard" here, let's remind ourselves that we're debating reality in a film about a billionaire playboy that dresses like a bat, fights crime, survives 40 story falls, and battles psycopaths that paint their faces, survive explosions that melt one side of their face rather than kill them....should I go on?

If you're unwilling to suspend belief, as every fiction-based film requires you to do before you can accept its reality, then I wonder why many of you even watch movies in the first place.

I think many of you are trying to convince yourselves that this film is smarter than it really is. Newsflash: it's nothing new. It's a great action flick, that's it. The overhype came from those who initially dubbed this the greatest, most intelligent piece of cinema in a decade. Rubbish, of course.

I've actually come to like this flick more than when I first saw it. I thought it was a fun flick at first, but nothing more. Nothing more than a great action flick--as it simply doesn't exist as "smart" outside of the action genre. Wall*E is a far more intelligent film than is TDK any way you look at it, but TGK is still a great action flick. These characters are simple, nothing more. Outside of the Joker, everyone else is pretty much stock.

I think once you accept that it's just mindless fun and not try to convince yourselves that it should be brilliant, you might enjoy it

Okay, that's perfectly fine and I understand. I guess it is a "different strokes" kind of thing after all.

However, I may have missed it reading your most recent post, but what got you to discharge Ledger of his Best Supporting Actor award?

watched the movie last nite, excellent quality thru my PS3. I have an old AVR and guess I'm missing alot with the new audio formats.. hooked up via optical..I found not too much with the surrounds but lots of action with sub and center and mains.. I'm looking forward to getting a new AVR for the new formats..

I think that some of you are missing an underlying theme to DK, and that is that it has a character called The Joker!

The Bus saves him through the wall.... that's a joke!

The guy has a bomb in his stomach, he probably will always be captured at the same time as the Joker, so no matter where the Joker is placed, this character will follow. So he will always be a sort of backup jail escape plan. But it's a sort of black comedy moment.

The boats obviously had the detonators set to their own boats, so if you press the button, you actually blow yourself up... that's a joke that is burried in the Joker's face as you watch him waiting.

The final chapter says... the joke is on you Joker!

It has a sort of Buster Keaton humour throughout, where windows fall over his head perfectly etc.

Congratulations to heath and his family for the golden globe win.

yes,Franin your country have many talened actors,actress,directors.Congrat.to you all too.

I have a Panny BD30 connceted to an Onkyo 805 via HDMI. The display on the onkyo says Dolby Digital rather than the Dolby True HD that I selected. Also, my copy of Joe Kane DVE does the same. What is going on?

Finally saw this movie on BR last night, hoping to see what all the buzz was about.

WHAT A LETDOWN!

Where to begin?

1) The Harvery Dent character was hopelessly misused. The beginning and middle of his story arc were fine, up until he actually became Two-Face. HORRIBLE acting. HORRIBLE. I cringed at the "new" Harvey Dent scenes when he's gone loco. He's a terrible villain. The finale where he faces off with the family, was atrocious acting and I partly blame the writers for coming up with the terrible lines.

2) Maggie Gyllenhaal (aka Droopy Dog). 'Nuff said. Her acting wasn't too bad, in fact it was a lot better than Katie Holmes. But holy crap, her looks are soo distracting, I just couldn't suspend disbelief for a sec that ANY man, let alone a billion-dollar, handsome, playboy man like Bruce Wayne would fall for her. It killed any sense of romance/realism. When her demise came, I was kinda shocked, but two seconds later I was actually grateful it happened.

3) The Joker (Heath Ledger) was clearly the star of the show. But even the fact that he was nominated for an Oscar had me pissed off during the movie. I kept thinking to myself, THIS IS ACADEMY AWARD ACTING???! That said, he did a nice job playing The Joker. Very believable, but not OSCAR-worthy IMO. Also, watching The Joker mess with Barman made me realize there was actually no need for Two-Face, when you have a great villain like The Joker. They should've never turned Harvey Dent into Two-Face. It should've been alluded to in the hospital scene, where you see his face (so gross!) but his part should've ended there. The Joker was more than enough villain for TDK. It actually reminded me of Spider Man 3 - Sand Man AND Goblin's son- UGH! Overkill, and not needed. One villain should be enough for these superhero movies. Only Superman 2 succeeded in having more than one enemy and having it work well, IMO.

4) Bruce Wayne (C. Bale), anyone else annoyed with his lisp besides me? I kept thinking, what the hell is wrong with this guy and his lisp? It sounds like a slushing of words whenever he spoke. Very annoying. And I could hardly understand what he was saying whenever there's a scene with Alfred because he mumbles incoherently. I kept having to turn up the volume for those scenes.

5) The whole IMAX-cut-to-2.35:1 scenes where actually quite good IMO. I liked it. Some people complained, but honestly, it didn't bother me. First time I'd seen it used in a major motion picture, and I'd like to see more of it in the future.

6) As far as the transfer goes, its not as reference in sound as some are making it out to be. I'd rate the sound a solid 8, but not higher. IMO, the LFE was just not right. The part where the semi-truck flips over and lands on its back did not shake my apartment walls, like the movie "WANTED" did when the cars where flying and flipping through the air. Last time I checked, I semi weighed more than a sports car. Yet my fillings fell outta my mouth during WANTED, not TDK. The Video was amazing. I did not notice EE or ringing, but truthfully, was not looking for it. I'd rate the video quality a solid 9 watching it on my Sony 52XBR2 LCD HDTV.

Anyway, I'm selling my copy of TDK on Ebay tomorrow. I just can't say I'm a fan of this movie. After action movies like Bourne Ultimatum and the original Casino Royale, every other movie just pales in comparison. Those 2 movies have set the new benchark for action/story-telling for the forseeable future.

I recently bought the Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD player and the first movie I watched was Batman Dark Knight. When the disk loads the movie movie begins immediately (no main menu to select options, select scenes, etc.). Every other movie I've played since starts at a menu and I believe the same should be true of the Batman movie. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

The player has been upgraded with the most current firmware.

Thanks

Actually, all Warner BDs do that. Click the title/pop-up menu button (or equivalent) and you'll get the menu that way. If you have a set up that decodes TrueHD, make sure you go into Language (I think that's it) and select TrueHD as Warner BDs tend to default on Dolby Digital 5.1.


Edit: I also believe if you use the regular menu button, it will stop the movie and take you to a static menu page.


IIRC, Warner DVDs started the movie automatically as well. Always annoyed me because sometimes I like to pop the disc in and while it's loading, get something from the kitchen or whatever.

I've got to say that this is a really annoying thing about Warner Bros. BDs. I ran into this when I watched The Dark Knight for the first time last night. Having to pause the movie and use the pop up menu to change audio options is WAY inconvenient. I had the same thing happen when I watched "2001" on Saturday, but at least that doesn't have True HD audio option that you have to switch to. Warner Bros. should change this. I'm just glad I found out from this board that it's not something wrong with my player. I thought there was some problem that kept me from getting a top menu.