Theatrical Review of The Dark Knight

Great review Jason! I agree with what you posted. I do feel that the character devolpment was a bit quick, especially that of Harvey Dent. Going back to those good ole comic book days, Harvey last quite a bit longer, but who's counting. The storyline in the movie never did truly stop, and that's honestly what I really enjoyed about it. There was a new peice moving all the time. In essence, when you feature a film at 157 mins, I can see why. The audience, didn't really want that break at 1 or 2 or 2:45 in the morning!! I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you have a feature this long, it is not nessisarily a bad thing. The viewer will never get bored, and holy crap sure has a lot to talk about, and the temptation is mounting to go see it again next week! Crap, I saw Revenge of the Sith three times before it hit DVD!!! Twice in the Regular admittion, and once in the cheap seats! I'm thursting this one again. X2 was another movie I saw twice in theatres. Superman, I can honestly say I never saw in the theatre, but bought the HD DVD, and Spiderman 2 was not that great, and waited for the second showing on DVD. Anyways Great Review, and I loved this Movie. I'm DYING to see the NEXT ONE!!!

yeah that movie was awesome!!! Bale was great to, but ledger performace was outstanding, i hope it at least gets looked at come award time. awesome movie

Spidey 2 wasn't that great? Most would say that SM2 is the movie that TDK dethroned.

http://hddvdreviews.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-is.html

depression: i think that the "spider-man" movies are rather over-rated. the CGI in part two was laughably bad (especially the final sequence with spidey swinging next to two helicopters). kirsten dunst is cute, but she looks like she's bored in these kinds of movies.

best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jul 19, 2008]

Spidey 2 was decent but, Doc Oct's CGI looked like some bad ass 1980's cheesy film overdubs... Heavily formented hair on your tougue after a hard night of drinking. The tenticles, were just as bad as King Kongs battle with T-Rex!!! That was really shitty!

Iron Man may have follow comic book legendary, but failed "In my mind" To WOO the film industry. It was lacking something. I don't know, Intrigue? It wasn't my first choice, but it was good, but didn't woo me...

I have yet to see the second version of Hulk, but I hear it is good. the first one may have followed a lot of the same principle of the story line, but bored me to tears! So I will give the second Hulk a second chance, once it hits DVD.

I'm surprised Jason wasn't put off by the "anti-psychotic" and "anti-crime" messages of the film. . .but then that would mean he was taking a plot device too seriously. It's not like that's ever happened before, like, say, in a movie that featured an earth that was COVERED IN TRASH.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

7/10. Too long, the plot line in Asia was almost completely orphaned, and the movie seemed to drag when the Joker wasn't on screen.

Alright, I'm going to try to respond. It is 8 am and I'm still half asleep...

Quote:
I do feel that the character devolpment was a bit quick, especially that of Harvey Dent. Going back to those good ole comic book days, Harvey last quite a bit longer, but who's counting.

I don't 100% buy Harvey is dead. I have nothing to pin that feeling on, but I simply don't buy it. Even Gordon "died," I felt sucker punched and when he popped out of the SWAT van, I almost wanted to cry. I had no reaction to Harvey (or Rachel, but that's a different story).

Quote:
The storyline in the movie never did truly stop, and that's honestly what I really enjoyed about it. There was a new peice moving all the time. In essence, when you feature a film at 157 mins, I can see why.

Absolutely. It needed to keep moving at all times. I just wonder what the finished product would be like it stopped every once in a while to give us a scene unrelated to the plot.

Quote:
Spidey 2 wasn't that great? Most would say that SM2 is the movie that TDK dethroned.

I never said SM2 wasn't an excellent movie. Every time I watch it, I enjoy it. But as Eddie says, the CGI is bad. You're always aware what you're watching can't be real. Maguire is no Christian Bale and Spidey does not have a villain to match the Joker. Alfred Molina and Willem Defoe and Thomas Hayden Church are good actors. Ledger blows them out of the water.

Quote:
I'm surprised Jason wasn't put off by the "anti-psychotic" and "anti-crime" messages of the film. . .but then that would mean he was taking a plot device too seriously. It's not like that's ever happened before, like, say, in a movie that featured an earth that was COVERED IN TRASH.

Okay, look. For the one billionth time: I was not put off by the second half of Wall-E. I felt the message was hammered home a bit too much. That's all.

I never got the feeling Nolan and company were trying to make a point, even in the Joker/Batman conversation at the end. He was allowing the characters to speak what was on their minds.

Quote:
the plot line in Asia was almost completely orphaned

No, it wasn't. Getting Lao back to Gotham to lock him up was step 1 in bringing down the rest of the mob's money. After Fox went to Hong Kong and Batman kidnapped him, there was no purpose to being there anymore. And Lao did show up one or two more times to remind us he was essential to the formation of the plot. What more did you want?

Jason, tired

Quote:
best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

Hulk??? That one was one of Marvel's WORST adaptations. The new one is a major improvement over that piece of crap Ang Lee put out.

Iron Man was excellent, but The Dark Knight is undoubtably the King of all superhero movies.

What I can’t believe is how some of you think X-Men 2 was one of the greats! That movie was too cornball for me, and what I mean is it’s the kind of film that wants to be taken serious but comes across too damn silly in certain areas. Take the scene where the cops show up at the kids house to arrest the X-men and all hell breaks loose – we get the usual cliché of all the cops being completely inept to do their job and that scene alone ruined the movie for me. To be honest, I find the X-men movies fun entertainment – meaning put the brain aside and everything works fine. However, the overall quality of those films rates no more than a 6 to 7 out of 10, IMO. Plus, some of the CGI in those films is far from perfect, too.

Spider-man 2, however, was a great film because it offers more substance than many of the films in its genre. It’s really a love story with the whole super hero thing as a backdrop, when you really look at it. For me, I think it was the lack of any love relationship in Iron Man that makes it fail as a “perfect” movie, IMO. While I did truly enjoy Iron Man, I did feel there were those pieces of substance that were missing. I thought the Stark character was fun, but I couldn’t stop thinking that in real life we might view the guy as a weapons dealing, over-wealthy a-hole. Yet the character turns good, it still made me feel a little conflicted in whether I should like the character or not. Spider-man 2 offered so much more in character substance, as we get a love story combined with super hero action. Plus, it's far too difficult to not like or connect with Peter Parker. However, Iron man is just a pure adrenaline rush, and a fun one at that, but that’s about all it is. And in some ways, this is why Superman Returns fails for the complete opposite reasons – too much love story and very little action.

IMO, films in this genre work well when there is a perfect combination of substance and that’s what truly can make them great. Too much focus in one area tends to bog these films down lacking in good entertainment value. Plus, get rid of the corny, schmaltzy, spandex body suit and bad one-liner dialog helps a lot in the process of making something great. At least in Iron Man and Batman Begins there is an explanation to the suit and/or body armor, making it feel less cornball. Superman . . . he just has tights and a cape and we’re all supposed to not question it because, well, he’s Superman! Well, I’m not buying it as I think of it as unrealistic, stupid and just plain cheesy. The one thing I loved about The Incredibles is how it was explained why the cape was a bad idea, and the funny thing is it took an animated film to show how ridiculous wearing a cape is. lol.

---

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Jul 20, 2008]

Jason, great review once again. I'm looking forward to this movie more than ever now. Jason, I'm guessing you saw it on a regular screen, not IMAX? If so are you at all interested in seeing the IMAX version for comparisons sake? I'll be seeing it on IMAX tomorrow at noon and I can't wait.

Tim -

Quote:
The one thing I loved about The Incredibles is how it was explained why the cape was a bad idea, and the funny thing is it took an animated film to show how ridiculous wearing a cape is.

I love that scene where they explained the whole cape thing too. What a laugh. I hope they make another Incredibles.

I'm with Tim on X2. The early Nightcrawler scene at the White House was amazing, but after that the whole movie went downhill.

But for Tony Stark, he's supposed to be an a-hole sometimes. And sure, there wasn't any romance, but there was still some tension between him and Paltrow. Maybe it will develop further in the sequel.

Tim,

X2 is the first comic book movie that made a social parallel-the plight of mutants (coming out, etc.) and orientation. It gets major points for even trying, let alone pulling it off reasonably well. The cornball elements you mention I ascribe to keeping as close as possible to the comic origins. Police are notoriously inept there, too!

Falcon,

I only saw the regular version, not IMAX. I'm weary of the IMAX experience for a 152 minute opus, though. It would probably just give me a massive headache from being so big and in my face!

Jason, nap time

Quote:
I never said SM2 wasn't an excellent movie. Every time I watch it, I enjoy it. But as Eddie says, the CGI is bad. You're always aware what you're watching can't be real. Maguire is no Christian Bale and Spidey does not have a villain to match the Joker. Alfred Molina and Willem Defoe and Thomas Hayden Church are good actors. Ledger blows them out of the water.

My Spidey response was directed towards ReaggieP

I think its obvious that Spider-Man 2's whole was greater than the sum of its parts as you pointed out. While I completely agree that Ledger's performance as The Joker was better than any comic book movie villain seen to date, I do think its a bit unfair to make direct comparisons to others like Molina and Defoe.

The direction Nolan was taking the franchise, the role of The Joker (and the script penned for his character), and the breathing room Heath was given for interpretation was a once in a lifetime opportunity (which he completley seized). What I'm getting at is that Molina's Doctor Octopus could never aspire to be what Ledger's Joker was because of the character's foundation.

I completely agree with Tim on the character development in SM2. Parker & Octavian's transitions were some of the most natural and organic we've seen in the genre.

Without a doubt, "The Dark Knight" is a masterpiece when compared to even the best comic book hero adaptations. It's in a class all its own.

Eddie always the contrarian. You're predictable, I'll give you that much.

Quote:
Eddie always the contrarian. You're predictable, I'll give you that much.

Thinking the movie is merely very good instead of great makes you a contrarian now? Tough crowd.

Tim..Your a nerd.

Infact IMO your all nerds.

---

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Jul 20, 2008]

What did you say Bladerunner?

"Now pay attention to how I straddle the pole Robin -- this move drives the men crazy!"

Why so serious?



-Will

i'm not being contrarian.

i think that people are educated poorly when it comes to analytical skills. how many times have we heard that something is "good" or "great" just because it's "dark"? by that rubric, "indiana jones and the temple of doom" should be considered the best of the series since it's the darkest of the four. everyone--including the likes of roger ebert and a.o. scott--needs to wake up. "dark" isn't automatically good. rather, it's simply yet another adjective used to describe something.

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jul 21, 2008]

i agree about the darkness with ed.

very good movie. i didnt know two face would be so involved in the one.

That's true, I can think of some "dark" movies that were pretty lame! "Blade Runner" for example . . .

Tim, I agree. Blade Runner was just OK for me the first time around. After hearing all of the hype about it being a classic I decided to stream it from Netflix again and it still was just OK.

I got to see the Dark Knight Friday afternoon and all I can say is EPIC! Wow what a movie, it most defenitely ranks up there with some of the BIG ones. It has been a long time since I sall a movie and wanted to turn around, go buy another ticket and watch it again. Ledger was AMAZING, the Cinematography of the Chicago Skyline was breathless and the musical score actually gave me chills. Especially in the scenes right before the BIG action would kick in. There was that long high to low violine note that told you to brace yourself. And even though Ledger stole the show, not since The Godfather have all the actors on the screen meshed so well with each other.
Chris Nolan and his brother should be major proud of themselves. What a seamless story that made the almost three hours go by with such entertainment. It was the first time in a long one, that I was so excited to see a movie like The Dark Knight.
The BAR has been raised in Hollywood for super hero movies. Yes years from now, another movie will come along and deliver like The Dark Knight. However, that time will be in the distant future. All I can say is BRAVO BRAVO!!!

Like I said in another thread, I really don't go to the theater about once a year. I have an IMAX theater less than a 15 minute drive and I'm really tempted to go and see this film in IMAX, but I'm partial to what Tim said. I think I'll wait a couple of weeks to see it. Let the crowds die down. If I see it in IMAX (Baltimore), I'll be sure to let everyone know how the experience was.


EDIT: This is so not funny, I have not one but two IMAX theaters within 15-20 of my home and neither one is showing TDK. In order for me to see it in IMAX I have to travel 1hr to Harrisburg, PA.

---

[Post edited by tony1569 on Jul 21, 2008]

Flame all you want, but THE best Superhero movie of ALL time is the Richard Donner-directed-1978 - Superman.

Hands down!

Eddie you don't disappoint.

I'm not talking about education or the level of darkness. I just think it's odd:
best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

Those are your favs, obviously, but how does Iron Man merit being on that list? Even "The Hulk" is more ambitious than IM, which is pretty run-of-the mill at the end of the day. And I don't see how you can rationalize IM tops TDK in any way. So yeah I'm curious.

Quote:
Those are your favs, obviously, but how does Iron Man merit being on that list?

I'm a die-hard comic book fan and film fan/scholar, and I would probably rate Iron Man the second best super-hero adaptation of all-time after Superman 2. So it's not just Eddie. I thought it was everything a super-hero movie should be - the perfect balance of fun and serious without wandering into the territory of camp or of pretension. And of all the super-hero adaptations I've seen, it is the one truest to its origins, though that probably doesn't matter to most viewers. It was, in short, fabulously entertaining.

Chris,

The only thing I'd add (which you hit on with the pretension) was Iron Man didn't think it was making some grand social/political statement. It looked and sounded as if it came out of a stereotypical comic book...and that's what it aspired to be.

TDK, on the other hand, isn't a comic book movie in "general" definition of a comic book. I hate even trying to compare them because they all have something to recommend. (Except Elektra...that was an awful movie.)

Jason, remember...I liked Ghost Rider

Quote:
hat's true, I can think of some "dark" movies that were pretty lame! "Blade Runner" for example . . .

lmao...your crazy.

Let me put it this way: I saw "TDK" today and enjoyed it, certainly. But given the choice of which I look forward to seeing again on disc, it's "Iron Man." The fact is, "TDK" does take itself pretty seriously, as it should. But it's way too long and too grim, and those damned swirling camera movements of Nolan's started giving me a headache.

John

what "iron man" and "the hulk" got right is their focus on character psychology, even if they approached psychology differently. "iron man" showed us how a shallow man was able to find his conscience, even if he still likes to have fun from time to time. "the hulk" was uber-serious and showed realistic deliberations and conundrums.

"batman begins" was very mechanical. it laid down all the tracks on the rail line as if it were a dutiful laborer. therefore, "the dark knight" was a big step beyond "batman begins", but clearly, chris nolan now thinks that he's the greatest director of all time (just like manoj shyamalan). the action became very repetitive, which dulled the genuinely tense moments (such as when the passengers on the two ferries have to make a horrible decision).

i still think that the best moments in nolan's "batman" movies involve bruce wayne just chit-chatting with michael caine and morgan freeman. can you imagine a two-hour movie with batman and joker just sitting down for dinner? "my dinner with joker"--that would be something.

With Iron Man, Favreau wants us to believe Stark (mid-40's) was naive(?) in this day and age about his warmongering business and weapons in the wrong hands is ultimately a big no-no. I would have more easily bought Stark just didn't give a shit than he just kinda didn't really know the negatives. Stane victimized Stark too. I didn't buy it.

Eddie: but clearly, chris nolan now thinks that he's the greatest director of all time (just like manoj shyamalan).

What leads you to that clear conclusion?

---

[Post edited by JSWELL on Jul 22, 2008]

Quote:
chris nolan now thinks that he's the greatest director of all time

Eddie, I'm also curious as to what leads you to that conclusion. I stayed far away from interviews and stories on TDK prior to seeing it, but I expect Nolan claiming or thinking he's the best director of all time would have been a somewhat major headline. And I missed it. )

Jason, quizzical

No. No. NO! Ironman, was contribed and lacked mystery. I do not like Downey but believe he did a great job with what he had. Does anybody remember half of the useless characters introduced and spit two or three lines out then disaapear? I guess that, how they wanted it to be... It may have followed a comic book storyline, but failed at creating a series. Don't get me wrong, a sequel will probably be added, but where will it go? The TDK is merely a peice of the legendary Batman storyline. There is so much to explore yet. We've only seen a partial side of the Batman.

Remember, coomparing Iron Man and Batman Begins, Iron Man blows BB in a heartbeat...so imagine, if Dark Knight was better than BB, how much better Iron Man 2 is going to be??

And agreed, Superman II is THE best...

Well I saw Dark Knight yesterday on IMAX and overall it was a positive experience. Let me say right off the bat the movie was VERY good and the pace is non-stop. Well written, well acted, exellently executed. The Joker was almost mesmerizing, he stole the show for me. Not to sound over-the-top or anything but whenever the Joker was on the screen I was totally glued to that screen. You just didn't know what he would do or say next. As good as Harvery Dent was (I'm glad his character was given such a good part n this film) the Joker owned this movie for me. Anyway I could go on and on but just read Jasons review which is linked to the first page of this thread and it sums it up quite nicely. I also have to say I love what happened with the two boats and what the convict did. His line of "I will do what you should have done 20 minutes ago" and what he did afterwards was such a positive human thing. It was nice to see.

About the IMAX experience, if you can see it on IMAX, definitely do it. It's worth the extra couple of dollars. Right from the opening scene where the camera pans over the city towards the building where the bank robber is about to shoot the rope to the other building, you get the "IMAX" experience. I know it's been said there were only 4 scenes filmed in IMAX but I swear it was more. I remember watching James Bond in IMAX once and it was a horrible experience. The sound was echoing and the film was so small on the screen that it just looked dumb. Not in the case of D.K. The IMAX scenes were really good and the regular (non-IMAX) scenes almost filled up the whole screen also. The two guys I watched the movie with didn't even notice when it changed back to the regular version, that's how good it was. Mind you, this is where I'm going to warn you guys, we were sitting a little too close to the screen. We were seated a few rows below the middle (about two-thirds of the way down) because all the good seats were already taken. One thing I have to say about the IMAX experience, if you are going to watch it this way sit as close to the top of the theatre as possible. I know for me it would have been much more enjoyable and would have seen the movie a lot better. It didn't help the guy sitting beside me had a horrible case of dragon breath which was distracting in itself. So ya, if you see it in IMAX sit in the top half of the theatre. You'll be glad you did and it will be totally worth it.

---

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Jul 22, 2008]

Eddie, something we can agree with about Hulk!!

Quote:
best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

You are missing Fantastic Four ( )...I want to call this your 2000's list, since Superman and Batman Returns aren't there...and you didn't like Spiderman 2 or X-men 2??

yeah, i didn't like any of the "superman" movies (like tim, i can't stand the red underwear).

i don't like tim burton's movies (see here: http://hddvdreviews.blogspot.com/2008/04/sweeney-todd-two-disc-collectors.html).

i didn't like the "x-men" movies because all of the actors were so bland except for patrick stewart, ian mckellan, and hugh jackman.

the first spidey was pretty good, but as the series continued, maguire's whiney acting and dunst's spaciness irritated me. james franco can act the other twos' butts off, but he's stuck with playing the idiotic harry osborne.

a director doesn't have to state that he thinks that he's the best director of all time. just look at the way he makes movie. when he lets his movies run for much longer than they need to be, then he thinks that whatever he's shot is too precious to be left on the cutting-room floor. that's when a director has jumped the shark (see spielberg and "indiana jones 4" or manoj and anything after "the sixth sense" ).

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jul 22, 2008]

Quote:
Let me put it this way: I saw "TDK" today and enjoyed it, certainly. But given the choice of which I look forward to seeing again on disc, it's "Iron Man." The fact is, "TDK" does take itself pretty seriously, as it should. But it's way too long and too grim, and those damned swirling camera movements of Nolan's started giving me a headache.

John

Agree 100%.

I saw the flick last night. IMO 7 out of 10...at best. Unfortunately it's been hyped so much, it was a bit of a let-down for me.

I finally saw Dark Knight, and it just didn't do anything for me. I just plain old don't like Nolan's work, and I doubt I ever will. Heath Ledger was good, but I think the outsized praise for his performance has as much to do with his tragic death as the role itself. Dark Knight wasn't a bad movie it just never got me interested. And as Eddie said, the action scenes are simply not well shot and edited.

I wish Bale would drop his "I have throat cancer" voice as Batman it's pretty silly.

(semi-spoiler)





I loved Joker as the nurse, though.

Eddie: a director doesn't have to state that he thinks that he's the best director of all time. just look at the way he makes movie. when he lets his movies run for much longer than they need to be, then he thinks that whatever he's shot is too precious to be left on the cutting-room floor. that's when a director has jumped the shark (see spielberg and "indiana jones 4" or manoj and anything after "the sixth sense" ).

Here I thought you, of the less poorly educated people, had some basis in fact. Instead you present an completely illogical and irrational theory that would indict even the truly great directors.
So really, a director doesn't have to state that he/she thinks they're the best of all time, until Eddie says so.

Wow!

Quote:
(see spielberg and "indiana jones 4" or manoj and anything after "the sixth sense" ).

I'd like to add Peter Jackson to that list, did King King need to be three hours? And just in case it wasn't long enough he made an extended edition.

---

[Post edited by Movielover316 on Jul 22, 2008]

Quote:
I finally saw Dark Knight, and it just didn't do anything for me. I just plain old don't like Nolan's work, and I doubt I ever will. Heath Ledger was good, but I think the outsized praise for his performance has as much to do with his tragic death as the role itself. Dark Knight wasn't a bad movie it just never got me interested. And as Eddie said, the action scenes are simply not well shot and edited.

I wish Bale would drop his "I have throat cancer" voice as Batman it's pretty silly.

(semi-spoiler)





I loved Joker as the nurse, though.

Excellent post!!!

I can't add anything to it, because I thought the same thing when I saw it.

The throat cancer remark was funny as HELL!

---

[Post edited by wolfen on Jul 23, 2008]

Quote:
Heath Ledger was good, but I think the outsized praise for his performance has as much to do with his tragic death as the role itself.

I disagree. I saw the trailer a few weeks before his death, and thought he looked amazing. And this was after wondering what in the hell Nolan was thinking for even casting him in the first place. His praise is well deserved.

Quote:
I disagree. I saw the trailer a few weeks before his death, and thought he looked amazing. And this was after wondering what in the hell Nolan was thinking for even casting him in the first place. His praise is well deserved.

Thats how I was as well. The moment I heard him laughing in the trailer to the moment I saw him in the trailer I knew it was going to be a great performance.

Which I think can be said for most of the movie fans and comic book fans that were following this movie every step of the way.

His death has definitely caught the attention of a LOT of the casual crowd though.

You can judge a performance from a trailer? You need to get to Hollywood now. They'll pay you millions for that kind of consulting!

for my money, heath ledger's best performance was in "10 things i hate about you".

Heath got completely robbed for Brokeback Mountain. But Eddie was afraid to watch that one.

that wasn't even ang lee's best gay-themed movie.

trailers should be viewed as complete works in and of themselves.

for example, i thought that the teaser trailer for "pearl harbor" was fantastic, but we all know what the final product was.

on the flip side, i thought that the trailers for "iron man" made the movie look horribly juvenile, but the movie is possibly one of the best of 2008.

Quote:
that wasn't even ang lee's best gay-themed movie.

Crouching Tiger?

"sense and sensibility"

Ang Lee's directing a Woodstock film next. What's with your boy, Eddie?

he won his oscar, so he's jumped the shark, too.

time to watch some "star trek: TOS" to cleanse myself...

Quote:
You can judge a performance from a trailer? You need to get to Hollywood now. They'll pay you millions for that kind of consulting!

i didnt judge his performance by the trailer. it just turned out that his performance in the film matched my expectations from said trailer. and your right CS, he DID get robbed for "brokeback". infact the whole movie got robbed. and this is coming from a heterosexual male.

---

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Jul 23, 2008]

Somehow this picture fits Tim.

---

[Post edited by ReaggieP on Jul 23, 2008]

I'd rather watch Brokeback Mountain than Dark Knight again, and that's coming from someone who loves (not a good word choice in this post ) superheroes and action movies...

do you wish you could quit that movie?

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jul 24, 2008]

I could have really done without the Harvey Dent stuff at the end...other than that it was a pretty good movie.



-JS

mvckalel, you would also find this to be a top seller then?

Eddie, there was some sexual tension between Batman and the Joker...go figure...and there was a moment were I almost say that out loud in the theatre, don't remember what part...

JS your right it was a really good movie. You can't really judge by what the two harsher critics have said so far. Considering one of them had The Hulk at the top of his list and the the other had Iron Man as the best movie of the year!

MV Brokeback before TDK, are you serious?

Hey MV I heard they are making a sequal to Kazam, maybe thats more of super hero movie for ya. LOL

---

[Post edited by InvisibleBiker on Jul 25, 2008]

Ever since Chris brought it up in another thread, this is what I'm waiting for:

OK what the F, or should I say who the F is that? LMAO

It's actually Wall-E...



With this I really lost it...



And I can really see how Joseph Gordon-Levitt can fit into the role, better than Depp...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Jul 25, 2008]