|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Dark Knight
|
|
|
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-28-2008 07:14 PM
Titanic will probably fall, but not by much. It's 10 years since the boat movie and worth noting that its final domestic gross of $608,788,188 would be the equivalent of $908,688,900 today adjusted for inflation.
Now THAT figure will not be reached by The Dark Knight.
Of course all that pales into insignificance as adjusted for inflation that little film Gone With The Wind's take of $198,676,459 would be the equivalent of a whopping $1,430,476,000 today.
(figures from the great www.boxofficemojo.com )
Has anyone mentioned the minimalist use of CGI in this film?
Works for me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-28-2008 11:56 PM
We watched this Saturday night. Due to being really busy, we hadn't had a chance to sit and watch it through the whole first week - that's a good thing, though!
I enjoyed it a lot. I don't remember watching "Batman Begins" but I didn't find that to be a problem here. the sound mix was awesome, although (as some have mentioned) a few words got buried in the music here and there, but nothing terrible. Heath Ledger was excellent, as noted. Greatest villain ever? I don't know, but damn close for sure. I thought all of the actors did a fine job.
My wife liked the movie too. I think the only complaint we might have is that we were a tad bit confused by the story at times, but that might be due to not having seen the earlier movie (in fact I haven't sat thru a Bat movie since "Batman Returns," whenever that was.)
I thought the saddest part of the whole show was when the Joker said, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever." Makes me wonder what (if anything) they will do with the character in the future. Maybe find an unknown great actor to step in.
Four out of five stars from me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-29-2008 12:39 AM
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #4
Format: 2K DLP
Rating: 4 stars out of 4
I had a lot of fun watching this movie. It's the best action movie I've seen in quite some time.
The Dark Knight had a lot of things going for it. Obviously Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is one of the strong points. The Joker in this movie is one nasty, unpredictable villain. He's smart, funny, very capable and bat shit crazy. The combination serves up the best movie villain seen in years. If that wasn't enough, we get another effective villain with Harvey "Two Face" Dent.
It's nice for an action movie to feature villains that aren't written as being stupid. Too many action movies just make the bad guy a butt for jokes (common in any "buddy cop movie" and many other action movies of recent years). This time the bad guys often have the last laugh.
I think the screenplay deserves a good mention too. It was often clever and delivered some good plot twists. Sometimes it tried to get a bit deep and profound. The Joker and the movie's action kept things from getting boring, despite the 2 and 1/2 hour run time.
As for the Oscar talk, I believe Heath Ledger has a good chance of winning a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. That goes regardless of his death. I'd bet right now that Ledger will at least get a nomination. Villains do pretty well in picking up nominations and even wins in the Supporting Actor category. Hell, "Anton Chigurh" won during the last Oscars. HDNet Movies played In the Line of Fire a few days ago -another good, Oscar-nominated villain performance from John Malcovich.
Aaron Eckhart was well cast as Harvey Dent. He seems like leading man material, but is great playing bad guys (I loved his performance as Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking). It makes sense for Harvey Dent's character arc to play itself out in this movie. It would have been far too predictable to just have him waiting to do his thing in another sequel.
The "two face" effects were surprisingly creepy. And arguably gory enough to tempt an R-rating. I was really pretty wierded out by it at first glance. Likely a combination of CGI and practical makeup. The effect was a lot better than the silly purple goo put on Tommy Lee Jones' face in Batman Forever.
Christian Bale's performance could have been a little better. It's a minor complaint. Not enough to deduct any stars from my rating. The raspy voice was kind of distracting. But then when he talked "normally" he, uh, kinda sounded a bit dense -like Keanu Reeves in Speed. What happened to the more edgy, well-spoken Christian Bale from American Psycho?" It's like someone dropped a few ludes in Bruce Wayne's coffee.
Katie Holmes is pretty. Maggie Gyllenhall did well enough to make me not miss Katie Holmes in this movie. Besides, it would have been a little weird if Katie Holmes was playing opposite Aaron Eckhart again (the two had a fling in Thank You For Smoking).
Anthony Michael Hall had a small role. He looks extremely different from how he looked in the 1980s. Sure 2 decades have passed, but he looks like a totally different guy.
I really want to see this movie again in IMAX to properly appreciate the cinematography.
Was anyone else surprised at how loud this movie was? The sound mix was good. But, man, they sure mixed some of those gunshots and explosions pretty hot. Of course, when you fire a handgun in real life the sound sure as hell won't be pleasant either!
The Dark Knight is going to sell a hell of a lot of Blu-ray Discs and Blu-ray Disc players this fall. Count on it.
quote: Chad Souder
Nicholson was fantastic in his interpretation of the Joker like Ledger was in his. That is why until people started seeing the ads for this new movie, everyone was questioning why they would do Joker again because Nicholson's character could never be topped. And to use Heath Ledger? Please... Now all of a sudden it has become fashionable to think Nicholson's performance was inferior.
Jack Nicholson is one of those rare people who in one movie will turn in a great, Oscar-worthy performance and then in another movie play a glorified version of his movie star personality. He did the latter in the 1989 version of Batman.
I'll also add this: I waited a long time in line to see Batman in 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo at Cinema One on 3rd Ave. in New York City back in 1989. I left that theater disappointed. At best, the 1989 version of Batman was nothing more than a good production design statement. There's hardly any story there. Nothing upon which to serve as a foundation for Nicholson chewing up the scenery. It's the Tim Burton movie I like the least. The Dark Knight is a far better movie and Ledger's performance as The Joker is also better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-29-2008 10:25 AM
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
some are predicting it will become the highest grossing film in box office history by surpassing TITANIC which had earned about six hundred fifty million
Titanic as stated above was $608,000,000. It would take incredible legs starting next week for Dark Knight to reach that. Assuming the weekly gross this week will be about half and going forward the weekly drop is a very good 40%, the total will be around $536,000,000. To get over $600,000,000 it would have to drop less than 35% week over week and have a 16 week run.
If this were 1997 it would have a real shot at Titanic (and maybe even the adjusted gross) but since the DVD/Blu-ray will be out in November it won't be possible to get the late run legs to keep piling on $30M a week like Titanic did.
It does have a real shot to become the 2nd or 3rd or 4th highest grossing "modern era" movie adjusted for inflation. Jurassic Park adjusted is around $610M and Star Wars Jar Jar Binks Episode is around $600M. Behind them is Forrest Gump at around $556M.
I consider "modern era" anything post 1985 or so when you got the multiplex revolution and home video (mostly VHS) was ubiquitous. You simply can't compare post home video grosses to pre home video grosses. It was a completely different industry and films like Gone With The Wind and the old Disney Cartoons played for YEARS.
Before home video if you really liked a movie, you HAD to see it multiple times in a theater or you might never see it again. Now, even if you love a movie you can see it once (maybe twice if it was really good) and then see it 1,000 times on DVD/Blu-Ray.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic