This is topic The Dark Knight in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001439

---

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 07-16-2008, 11:18 AM:
 
Well, what can I say. I just saw this, twice. I will just say that it is pretty much the best movie I have seen in years. I am still trying to get over how good it was.

Acting was stunning! Ledger was brilliant as the Joker, absolutely brilliant!

I think you should watch it and see for yourself. I know I'm going to see it a couple more times.

5/5.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-17-2008, 02:11 AM:
 
Most definitely the strongest hit of the summer! All of the houses on opening night (thursday night mid) should be sold out, along with the opening weekend.

(152 min on 7 FULL reels! NOW, why can the labs do films like this all the time ??)

152 minutes disappeared very quickly since it kept you in total interest!

..and Ledger, with his performance in this film as the Joker, should win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (Post.)

Well acted, written and directed!

5/5 for me as well !
 

---

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 07-17-2008, 02:40 AM:
 
I truly hope Ledger wins the Oscar for this.

His family will be proud of him, they saw a pre-screening weeks ago, and would be very proud. He is a great actor and would have only gotten better.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-17-2008, 12:09 PM:
 
I hate hyped up movies like you wouldn't believe. 99% of the time I just end up disliking them because of the hype, but this was an exception. Probably the best 3 hours I've spent in a theater in a LONG time. Great all the way around. There was a few reviews I read where they were comparing it to crime-dramas like Heat. It is more like a crime movie, that just happens to have a dude in a bat costume and a guy in clown make-up.

I'm going to have to disagree with everyone on the Ledger/Oscar thing. His performance was one of the best comic book characters I have ever seen, but just because he's dead doesn't mean they need to hand an Oscar over to him. Plus, if he was still alive, I'd bet there would be no Oscar talk. Hell, I liked Ron Perlman as Hellboy quite a bit, but there's no way he deserves and Oscar either.

SPOILER!!!
I wasn't expecting them to get into Harvey Dent as Two Face. I thought they would leave that to another movie. Absolutly fantastic way of doing his half face. And he had more screen time than Ledger did, which was surprising.

END SPOILER

Oh, and the BIGGEST PET PEEVE of mine of all time is when I screen a movie with employees that like to talk through the whole damn thing. One of the perks of screening movies early is that I don't have to deal with the chatty public. But I seem to always get stuck in the theater with the talkative employees...Just had to get that off my chest haha.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-17-2008, 01:55 PM:
 
I hate Batman movies. I hate, hate, hate them. They are stupid and offer no enjoyment value to me.

That being said, the last Batman movie was at least decent. Not great, but decent.

This Batman movie was very good. Not once did I look at my watch during this and not once was I bored with the movie. That's not to say this movie isn't without problems...but they were pretty much due to Christian Bale and the occasional line of dialog being buried in the sound mix.

Christian Bale's performance as Batman was ok, but it certainly wasn't anything to write home about. My biggest issue was how every time he was in the bat suit and had a line of dialogue to deliver I had to roll my eyes at how stupid he sounded. Was he trying to impersonate Darth Vader? I mean seriously, it was ridiculously overdone.

Aaron Eckhart and Gary Oldman's performances were well done all around. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were their usual excellent selves. The rest of the cast did very good as well. The only bad acting in this came from Batman himself.

Now in regards to Heath Ledger, I am in the camp of "just because he died and this is his last film doesn't mean he deserves an oscar". Yes I know he was in Brokeback Mountain, and had he not been in that movie playing a gay man he would never have achieved such a fanbase, but in this movie as the Joker...WOW! For once I have to side with the masses here. His performance was fantastic! Definitely the best protrayal of a comic book character ever. Although the entire movie is good, Heath Ledger is the reason to see this movie.

The movie overall...4 out of 5.

Any scene with Heath Ledger...5 out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 07-17-2008, 04:02 PM:
 
Allison, I solved the talkative staff chatter problem by banning them from my screenings
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-18-2008, 02:36 AM:
 
I'm still coming down from the high of seeing this. What a cinematic experience. Anyone notice how good the 35mm prints looked on this? It just seemed so visceral and detailed.

I wanted to see more of the Joker. I was totally engaged every second he was on the screen.

I can't wait to see this one again.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Ben Goodman (Member # 4770) on 07-18-2008, 04:24 AM:
 
-I don't think anyone deserves an Oscar more depending on their physical health.
-Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar.
-I really like what this movie did with Batman's character-- he's not particularly likeable or even noticeable. Bruce Wayne's struggles are very interesting, but Batman is not a character so much as a force. He's upstaged by pretty much everyone and I think that was intentional. There are a few exceptions, and the one scene of the Batman character that I really liked was in the briefing room with the Joker... but that may have just been more Heath Ledger making everything better.

Truly a phenomenal moviegoing experience. This is what film and theatre are all about-- gripping, deep, and yet incredibly fun. A great juxtaposition of intelligent cinema and popcorn movies.

5/5. I'm gonna try and see this in IMAX in Lincoln Square...
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-18-2008, 07:21 AM:
 

quote: Aaron Garman

---

Anyone notice how good the 35mm prints looked on this? It just seemed so visceral and detailed.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

3) Because of the IMAX release, digital CGI scenes were scanned at 8k for the IMAX sourced parts and 4k for the 35mm sourced parts (I haven't seen what resolution the effects were actually rendered at)
4) There was no digital intermediate. Non-CGI scenes were not digitised so all printing steps were done completely analog.

---

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren

---

Do you have a source? This is very cool, but wasn't Indy 4 supposedly done without a digital intermediate? It didn't look any better than any other release print, at least to me.

---

I think INDY IV did have a DI. But for comparison's sake, a recent anamorphic movie which didn't was THERE WILL BE BLOOD Personally, I think that movies which use a DI tend to look better than those that don't. While resolution is lost, the fact that fewer generations are required to get to a release print seems to outweigh that.
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 07-18-2008, 10:47 AM:
 
Wow! A film that actually Film Techers Love! This really has to be good!
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-18-2008, 11:21 AM:
 

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren

---

Do you have a source? This is very cool, but wasn't Indy 4 supposedly done without a digital intermediate? It didn't look any better than any other release print, at least to me.

---

quote: Allison Parsons

---

I wasn't expecting them to get into Harvey Dent as Two Face. I thought they would leave that to another movie. Absolutly fantastic way of doing his half face.

---

They gave that away in the trailer when they showed him with his face in the pool of liquid.
END SPOILER

As with seemingly everyone, this movie lived up to my very high expectations. The Superman crew has their work seriously cut out for them now. The 2005 Batman was much, much better than the crappy 2006 Superman movie and now they have to follow this act? Good luck...

My only criticism, if I can really stretch for one, is that they backed off on the blood a little. Plenty of explosions though.
 

---

Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 07-18-2008, 03:46 PM:
 
haven't seen it yet (released here in the Kinepolis complex next week).
but some comments:
1/ why having picked this Maggie ? she has an old looking face, hard to explain. i'm in the camp of those few who liked Katie Holmes (or didn't dislike her).
2/ it's again a proof that a movie in this genre needs THE vilain and Heath as far as i saw is incredible. top notch.
3/ some critics said it's even too dark, too adult. i like that !!! enough of movies for the 12-24public
4/ so a lot of work has been done to make cgi almost invisible? good because with blu ray at home , a lot of movies with cgi have a serious problem.
well can't wait to see it twice and then expecting asap a blu ray (November ?)

With IRON MAN, the super hero genre has turned towards a more adult public finally (compared to spiderman, superman etc).
 

---

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-18-2008, 05:46 PM:
 
We had customers complain during the midnight sneak that it was too intense and scary and that they expected the Joker to be like Jack Nicholsons version in Batman!

The only real thing I didn't like was the annoying "I'm strep-throat man!" voice. I kept expecting him to cough and start talking normally in the middle of a sentence like the albino character did in The Princess Bride.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2008, 01:17 AM:
 

quote: Jon P. Inghram

---

the annoying "I'm strep-throat man!" voice

---

..well, "Bruce" had to disquise his voice somehow and to identify that he was definitely "the Dark Knight"...to keep his identity hidden which Superman didn't do between "Clark Kent" and his alter ego.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-19-2008, 03:39 AM:
 
Absolutely loved this film.

The only thing I didn't care for was the Batman voice, as well. I understand the reason, but I think a better choice could have been made. At times, it seemed like forcing his voice like that cause Christian Bale problems, as he would pause mid-sentence to catch his breath before finishing. Unless the pauses were intentional, which I would not understand as it left the acting during those scenes feeling very wooden.

Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Aaron Eckhart were fantastic. Christian Bale is awesome (save for the forced voice while donning the suit) and I even liked Anthony Michael Hall and Eric Roberts.

I thought I disliked the Rachel Dawes character after the first film, but it turns out I just don't like Katie Holmes, I guess. I actually enjoyed the role and performance by Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Easily the fastest 2 1/2 hours I have ever spent in a theater, I actually found myself wishing it were longer when it was over. Every single scene moved the story forward and I never found myself bored. Stressful situations, high action, important dialog. There is a whole lot of story in this film, and none of it seemed crammed in or tacked on.

Ledger's Joker is the best comic book villain I have ever seen on-screen. His performance could have easily ruined this movie, and Christopher Nolan should be given huge kudos for having the marbles to cast him in the part. As I recall, there was a lot of naysaying and moaning going on by fans about the casting decision. They all owe Ledger and Nolan a huge apology.
 

---

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 07-19-2008, 05:04 AM:
 
I don't want to go into too much detail because I agree with pretty much everything everyone else has said, but for me personally this was the greatest movie of the decade so far. There are some close contenders (The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and The Departed included) but none have the mix of action, drama, and suspense as this did.

I loved the stunt choreography. This will win technical awards left and right.

I tried to think if there was anything I disliked and also with other people it was Batman's voice. I understand why but it just sounds like a smoked-out-lung Bruce Wayne.

I would rate it 10 out of 10 without question.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-19-2008, 09:59 PM:
 
CINEMA: Hollywood 10, St Joseph, MO
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Slightly out of focus
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

WARNING: "This town deserves a better class of Spoiler... and I'm gonna give it to them"

Everybody in the ticket line is buying tickets for either the first matinee of "Mamma Mia", or the 7:15 evening showing of "The Dark Knight". There are three computer-printed signs on the ticket window that say "ALL FRIDAY DARK KNIGHT SHOWS SOLD OUT". One of them also has "Yes, really" hand-written and highlighted in pink. Of course, it's Saturday now, so the signs are kind of pointless. Apparently, they sold a lot of Saturday tickets to disappointed Friday crowds.

I walk into the lobby, where a random employee is announcing YOUR THEATRE'S WORST NIGHTMARE: The concession stand POS system is down, so they can't sell anything. And they aren't.

But fear not..."The manager's working on getting it back up as fast as he can."

You'd think they'd just go to paper and pencil and sell what they could anyway, right? Maybe they can't get the cash drawer open to make change. They can sell tickets, they just can't sell the profitable stuff.

Random Customer (to smiling teenage concession stand employee): "You're going to lose a lot of money on one of your busiest days ever."

TEN MINUTES BEFORE SHOWTIME: The auditorium is half full, and nobody's brought in concessions.

SIX MINUTES BEFORE SHOWTIME: Random Moviegoer enters the auditorium with a large tub of popcorn. The auditorium is abuzz with excitement. About a half dozen patrons head for the concession stand. Some come back quickly, complaining aloud about the line. If corporate finds out about this, I'm sure there will be hell to pay.

THE PLOT: I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker. Wackiness ensues.

The Joker makes this movie. Heath Ledger's performance bordered on brilliant for about 2/3 of the movie, the crowning scene being the destruction of Gotham General. The movie as a whole is a huge improvement over the dreadful "Batman Begins". The action sequences actually make sense and there's much less of the extended boring dialogue than the last one. I didn't yell "SHUT UP!" at the screen once. There's still too much, but it's an improvement.

Bruce Wayne still disguises his voice by sounding like he's trying to hold back a really big turd. I like the actor as Bruce Wayne, but not so much as Batman. They should get James Earl Jones to voiceover the Batman scenes. (EDIT: He's dead, I just remembered that.)

As 2 1/2 hour movies go, this one is unusually watchable. I don't think it's the greatest screenplay this decade, much less the last couple of years, or even THIS year, but it's a vast improvement over the last one.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-19-2008, 11:40 PM:
 
Mike Schindler pointed this out already, but I like how prominent Chicago was in this one.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-20-2008, 02:16 AM:
 

quote: Sam Graham

---

They should get James Earl Jones to voiceover the Batman scenes. (EDIT: He's dead, I just remembered that.)

---

I'm quite sure that will come as news to him as he's currently doing voice-over work on 'Jack And The Beanstalk'.
 

---

Posted by John Pommon (Member # 648) on 07-20-2008, 04:05 AM:
 
Anybody experience the last scene with Morgan Freeman was squeezed . . . . it looked like scope w/o the scope lens. . .
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-20-2008, 08:42 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

I'm quite sure that will come as news to him as he's currently doing voice-over work on 'Jack And The Beanstalk'.

---

REALLY? I could have sworn...
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-20-2008, 09:02 AM:
 
Sam: That's James Earl Ray that passed on. This is a common error. See www.imdb.com and read the trivia section for James Earl Jones.
 

---

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 07-20-2008, 11:42 AM:
 
Absolutely awesome movie. Loved every second. Too bad we can never again witness the genius of Heath Ledger.

On our print, we have a DTS sound issue, it keeps cutting in and out. We have a new reel on order. Has anyone else had any DTS sound issues?

Louis
 

---

Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 07-20-2008, 12:00 PM:
 
$152Million thursday night to sunday night, absolute record ?

 

---

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 07-20-2008, 02:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

$152Million thursday night to sunday night, absolute record ?
[Eek!]

---

Actually it's $155M and yes that is the all-time record.
 

---

Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 07-20-2008, 03:37 PM:
 
truely amazing
a larger fan base ? Heath Ledger ?
costs less than to invest in home theater ?
people needing evasion from the economy ?
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-20-2008, 05:22 PM:
 
Anyone seen this in IMAX?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-20-2008, 06:01 PM:
 
Today @ 11:50AM, Regal 15 in Eugene, #13, 35mm. Basically perfect presentation of a beautiful print. No lab splices. Very steady, crisp and detailed image.

Add Heath Ledger's "Joker" to the list of the best film villains of all time. A remarkable and memorable performance that makes this a standout movie. Everything about this movie is absolutely firstrate.

I give it 5 out of 5 stars, except when Ledger's "Joker" is onscreen it gets 6 out of 5 stars. No shit.
 

---

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 07-20-2008, 09:59 PM:
 
Absolutely fantastic, just like everybody said. I was at the 9:00 a.m. IMAX presentation at the United Artists King Of Prussia Theater, and if you have the opportunity to see it this way, grab it! The transitions between the IMAX segments and "regular" footage were not distracting at all-often they went into a dark scene, which covered it. Actually, the only problem I had is that this had to be the darkest IMAX presentation I've ever seen at this theater-the bulb was getting on in hours!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2008, 10:55 PM:
 
Heath Ledger was almost as good in this movie as he was in "The Patriot". I bet we see a surge in DVD sales of The Patriot due to this movie. And maybe First Knight as well or whatever it was called.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-21-2008, 01:00 AM:
 
In re Galen's comment from page 1, "wasn't Indy 4 supposedly done without a digital intermediate?"

Spielberg and Kaminski were attempting to replicate the "look" of the older Indiana Jones movies. In so doing they, err, failed to make the movie look as good as it could look, in the name of historical authenticity. That's not a good data point to use in your evaluation.

It's widely recognized that a direct film chain, even with 4 generations (original camera negative, interpositive, internegative, release print) looks better than digital intermediate. Whether the difference is "a lot" or "so small as to be insignificant" is a question many people disagree on, but I don't think anyone is going to say DI looks better. [famous last words]

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-21-2008, 02:39 AM:
 
I've yet to hear any overall indifferent or negative comments from anyone. The response is incredibly positive all around.

The IMAX presentation is inspiring, or at least it should be! Audiences of IMAX DMR movies over the last five years have never seen anything like the full-screen IMAX sequences. Many quick aerial establishing shots were filmed this way, and it's rather eye-opening to be caught with such wide, crisp views to set up the action. The few whole sequences were well done, well edited. The beauty of 15/70 is in how much more lifelike the images are than any other projection presentation an audience has seen. This should be inspiring filmmakers to appreciate the capabilities that film still has over digital this or that.

This weekend, I've found myself just watching the IMAX bits over and over, just like I would do with any other "traditional" IMAX movie, because the detail is just so exquisite, there's always something new to find in the shot, and it's pretty much always beautiful.

Except when it's a close-up headshot of Morgan Freeman.

spoiler

The outside shot of the Joker setting off the Gotham General Hospital explosion was awesome. Although, I find it hard now not to see the building as an empty, life-size model of a building, which it is. The windows blow out, and there's not a single wall or anything on the inside. Cut to the aerial shot, and there aren't even any windows on the rear sides. A keen eye would pick up on that after a few viewings in any format, but the detail in the IMAX presentation of it, how it was filmed, made it apparent to me almost immediately. Great reaction by Ledger, though!

end spoiler

Heath rocked, agreed. With a great selection of decent dialog to work with, he had a fun time working with the character, I'm sure.

Like Batman Begins, this movie really showed the element of psychological development that "origin" movies need to have, but often don't, or fail to pull off. Gripping events and complex situations give a rich context to the feelings characters like Dent go through. You can't just tell backstory and have the audience follow along as read, you need to carry us through. These movies did it very effectively, I think.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-21-2008, 02:55 AM:
 

quote:

---

The outside shot of the Joker setting off the Gotham General Hospital explosion was awesome. Although, I find it hard now not to see the building as an empty, life-size model of a building, which it is. The windows blow out, and there's not a single wall or anything on the inside. Cut to the aerial shot, and there aren't even any windows on the rear sides. A keen eye would pick up on that after a few viewings in any format, but the detail in the IMAX presentation of it, how it was filmed, made it apparent to me almost immediately. Great reaction by Ledger, though!

---

quote: John Hawkinson

---

Whether the difference is "a lot" or "so small as to be insignificant" is a question many people disagree on, but I don't think anyone is going to say DI looks better. [famous last words]

---

quote: Galen Murphy-Falgren

---

wasn't Indy 4 supposedly done without a digital intermediate?

---

Indy 4 did use a digital intermediate in post production. EFilm did the digital intermediate work. Yvan Lucas was the colorist on the project. There is no word on the EFilm website whether Indy 4 was rendered in 2K or 4K.

[ 07-21-2008, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-21-2008, 02:38 PM:
 
Okay, it looked like a model because it was a parking structure with windows laced on two sides. That explains how easy it was to rig it to blow so the levels collapsed precisely for the most dramatic effect. Watching that Youtube video after seeing the IMAX sequence was quite an experience. The sound mix left a little to be desired, though.
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-21-2008, 09:01 PM:
 
removed
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-22-2008, 12:14 PM:
 
Okay, here's the deviation. I'm not a fan of "dark" Batman. I don't care what the comic books were, or are supposed to be. To me, Adam West will always be Batman... in great high-key, colorful lighting and production design.

First of all, the Batman in this movie was very annoying how he tried to talk two registers beneath his normal voice. That really grated. The effect of coolness and scariness was lost on me. Secondly, Batman is not supposed to fly... he always uses his Batrope for Batclimbs. Finally, from the moment I saw the trailer, I thought the guy playing the Joker was doing a Nicholson impersonation. When I saw him in the picture, it was confirmed.

The False Face guy, however, was very handsome and carried the movie.


 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-22-2008, 01:57 PM:
 

quote: Tim Reed

---

Secondly, Batman is not supposed to fly... he always uses his Batrope for Batclimbs.

---

He doesn't fly, he uses his "memory fabric" cape to base jump and glide. It's not as clear in this movie but it is well covered in Batman Begins when his Bat Suit is developed.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-22-2008, 02:06 PM:
 
Methinks you missed the
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-22-2008, 05:51 PM:
 

quote: Tim Reed

---

Finally, from the moment I saw the trailer, I thought the guy playing the Joker was doing a Nicholson impersonation. When I saw him in the picture, it was confirmed.

---

Are you kidding me? This Joker has little in common with Nicholson's Joker. Nicholson's Joker was comedic relief and not intimidating in any way. Nicholson was simply Nicholson in clown makeup. Ledger disappears behind the makeup and all you see is a psychopath with a disturbing sense of humor.

Ledger owned this role.

And Adam West is much better as Mayor Adam West of Quahog than he ever was as Batman!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-22-2008, 06:01 PM:
 

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

This Joker has little in common with Nicholson's Joker. Nicholson's Joker was comedic relief and not intimidating in any way. Nicholson was simply Nicholson in clown makeup.

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

Using Prince for Batman was a great choice.

---

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.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

Has anyone mentioned the minimalist use of CGI in this film?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

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."

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Half of Harvey Dent's face was CGI. I doubt they really cut his cheek open and exposed his bones much less his eyeball, but some actors are willing to go the extra mile so who knows.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

1453. Batman and Robin (I don't think I saw the whole thing, thankfully)

---

quote:

---

That's awesome! Say whatever you want, but I like these movies (B&R and BF at least) so much more than Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. They're just pure comic book entertainment. These new ones try to be serious, and that's where they fail. My order of preference:

1. Batman and Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman
4. the new series (BB so and so, TDK still digesting, but very underwhelmed)
4. Batman Returns

---

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

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It would be interesting to see actual attendance numbers for Titanic versus other recent hit movies, such as The Dark Knight.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The 1998 Batman and Robin movie with George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Easily the worst out of the Tim Burton directed/produced series of Batman movies.

---

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

I know the 35mm print of BATMAN-THE BLACK KNIGHT has an scope aspect ratio about 2.35.1 with all of the footage shot in 35mm but what is the ratio of all of the stuff shot in IMAX?

---

It's Pillarboxed. (And it's The Dark Knight).

To put some perspective into just how big this film is...it's been in release just 13 days and is already the 13th highest grossing film of all-time.

That is just amazing.

It's going to top Jurassic Park this weekend and more than likely also The Passion Of The Christ.

Lucky it wasn't pirated earlier or it would be only just topping Revenge Of The Nerds...II.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-01-2008, 08:31 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

To put some perspective into just how big this film is...it's been in release just 13 days and is already the 13th highest grossing film of all-time.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

According to the list at Box Office Mojo (linked by Lyle), The Dark Knight has sold about 48 million tickets. Jurassic Park is estimated to have sold 86 million tickets over its run. Titanic sold 128 million tickets. Gone With the Wind remains as the box office champ with an estimated 202 million tickets sold.

While The Dark Knight may be fixing to crack the top 10 in terms of sheer dollar earnings, it is just now entering the top 100 in terms of actual attendance numbers.

---

Isn't that just as skewed as dollars, though? There are, after all, a whole lot more things competing for entertainment dollars than there were even 10 years ago.

I think that's a big reason that the top 50 films in terms of tickets sold are primarily at least a decade old. There are only 5 films in that range from the last 10 years.

Even among movies themselves there is more competition today.

Comparing attendance figures from today to those from 70 years ago is interesting, but I don't think it paints a very realistic picture of success, either.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-01-2008, 11:32 PM:
 
Not only that, but are they counting the tickets sold at subsequent releases, or only the original release? Gone With Da Wind shouldn't have its dollar amount made from the 199x release counted and then adjusted for inflation as if they were 1930 dollars or whenever the hell that piece of crap was released.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2008, 12:52 AM:
 
The vast amount of attendance for Gone With the Wind took place before any of our parents were born. Numerous re-releases were put together. But let's see some blockbuster attendance numbers from any of them.

Let's get real for once. Some fake-ass wire-rig bullshit action movie made 3 months ago does not at all equate to being the greatest movie ever made. But that's the thing with people these days. They have NO clue whatsoever on movie history. They think only in terms of movies released in recent years or just recent months.

Yeah, there's more media competition happening today. At the same time our movies are 1000 times less original today then they were decades ago. Let's have a 9th sequel of a film that sucked pond scum! That's our movie industry today. To hell with any original ideas. To hell with taking a chance on a new story. Lets only make movies based on sequels of other movies that were pieces of dog poo. This makes up much of our movie industry today.

To be the "all time box office champ" I think a new movie has to beat Gone With the Wind by a very long way. Current movies are absolutely obligated to do a whole lot better to gain the true box office champ title. IMHO, sheer attendance alone shouldn't even be enough. The damned movie ought to be a completely new "franchise." No previous installments allowed. No sequels allowed. An "all time box office champ" should NEVER have a number follow the title. But that isn't likely to happen with the screwed up condition of America's movie industry today.

I swear American movie studios are just begging to get upended by studios from Europe, India, China and other nations. Absolutely begging for it. Those Hollywood executives can scoff at any such charges as they may. But pride goes before a fall.

BTW, I don't really like Gone With the Wind all that much. It's an overly long, boring movie. Nevertheless, it did far better in drawing audiences to movie theaters than any movie released since then. And that is an undeniable fact. Argue any way you like Gone With the Wind is still the true box office champ of all time. That simply is not going to change until some movie can convince American movie-goers to see a specific show worth over 204 million tickets sold.
 

---

Posted by Ray Faultless (Member # 903) on 08-02-2008, 04:33 PM:
 
A noon time show of The Dark Knight. I saw something which to me was better than the movie. Just before the start of 30 mins of ads and trailers I was four rows from the back below the projector and had stopped counting heads at fifty, in came a girl about 14 with a boy about 11 I guessed brother and sister they looked around and came and sat right in frond of me. As they got to their seats they both looked at me as if to ask if they are doing the right thing. Its was obviously their first time at the cinema. Anyway when the last trailer ended the lights went down they both moved to the edge of the seat and when the masking opened the boy went WOW, when the picture hit the screen the girl went Oh WOW. The sat back and enjoyed the movie. At the end when the lights came up they wern't sure if they should leave or wait till titles were done but the boy looked up at the booth and the look of wonder in his face when he saw the projector was fantastic. I think a new cinema fanatic was born right there.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-02-2008, 05:08 PM:
 
You also have to take into account GWTW was shown in single-screen houses... not wide-release multi-multi's with 1,000s of prints. That speaks a lot of it's power.

Don't be dissin' 'The Wind...

...and yeah, this Joker is definitely doing a Nicholson impersonation. LISTEN to him! Cesar Romero didn't talk like that.
 

---

Posted by Keith Rightmyer (Member # 3403) on 08-02-2008, 07:19 PM:
 
"Absolutely awesome movie. Loved every second. Too bad we can never again witness the genius of Heath Ledger. "

This was/is not Heath Ledger's LAST film. He died during production of Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" expected for release in 2009.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/)
Also from imdb.com...
"2/16/08. Star Pulse reports that Terry Gilliam has asked Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to pay tribute to Heath Ledger by taking turns playing his role in the scenes he did not finish filming. That means four different actors will be playing one part."
...just the facts, ma'am.

[ 08-24-2008, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Keith Rightmyer ]
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-02-2008, 08:20 PM:
 
Out of the millions of tickets sold for GONE WITH THE WIND, I can vouch for at least seven my parents or I bought during the multiple times I had seen the film in a theatre. The last time I saw the movie on the big screen at Honolulu's Cinerama Theatre was when New Line distributed it in the nineties with an IB print and digital sound.

Although GWTW is a bit long, I never found it boring at all and it is certainly not Crap. I first saw the film during it's reissue sometime in the forties because I was only four months old when it was premiered in Atlanta in December 1939. The film has always been a favorite of my family especially my mother and my late father.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-02-2008, 09:20 PM:
 

quote: Keith Rightmyer

---

"Absolutely awesome movie. Loved every second. Too bad we can never again witness the genius of Heath Ledger. "

This was/is not Heath Ledger's LAST film. He died in London during production of Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" expected for release in 2009.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/)
Also from imdb.com...
"2/16/08. Star Pulse reports that Terry Gilliam has asked Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to pay tribute to Heath Ledger by taking turns playing his role in the scenes he did not finish filming. That means four different actors will be playing one part."
...just the facts, ma'am.

---

Actually he died in a New York City apartment, but he whos counting. And this is actually his last full movie, he didn't get to finish Terry Gilliams project. That is why three actors are being brought in to cover what he couldn't film.

Just covering the facts sir.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-03-2008, 09:48 PM:
 
I finally had the opportunity to see BATMAN-THE BLACK KNIGHT and like almost all of you, I agree it was great! I had planned to see the movie at the Ward 16 in Honolulu but had to settle for a multiplex near my mother's nursing home today and see it at Consolidated's Kapolei 16 in house #14 with DTS sound. The presentation was flawless and I was very pleased. The film after three weeks is still #1 but the 200 seat house I saw the movie was slightly less than half full. That is the one thing I like about hit movies today when I can see them after they have been playing for two to three weeks and not be subjected to a crowded auditorium because the film is playing on more than one screen at every multiplex everywhere. BATMAN-THE BLACK KNIGHT was a very long movie but I never looked at my watch at all. Like some of you, I was bothered at first by the low register tone of Batman's voice in the beginning but after awhile, I had no problem with it. By the way, even if Heath Ledger was still alive, I think he stands an excellent chance of winning the best supporting oscar and other acting awards for his performance in this film. I have seen almost all of his films and I think this was his finest performance.

5 out of 5 stars

-Claude
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-03-2008, 10:49 PM:
 
Claude, glad you liked it. The DARK Knight that is!

I have never been able to sit through all of GWTW. It's a snooze-fest to me.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-03-2008, 11:46 PM:
 

quote: Claude

---

BATMAN-THE BLACK KNIGHT

---

 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-04-2008, 03:58 PM:
 
There must be a generation gap somewhere, Dave.

Everyone I know who are my age or older enjoyed GONE WITH THE WIND and have seen it many time in a theatre like me and that is why it had sold so many tickets. Movies at that time told simple stories unlike today when many films have very complicated plots that require deep concentration This is probably the reason I am not enjoying many films today because I become lost when there are so many things going on it becomes very difficult for my 'archaic' brain to keep up. A classic example was the first MATRIX film. Everyone seem to have enjoyed it and it made a lot of money and spawned several sequels. I totally disliked the film and walked out after watching an hour of it.

There is one thing I have to say about GWTW every time I watch it on DVD. It looks very ancient. When you consider it came out the same year I was born, makes me realize I am not as young as I feel I am.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 08-05-2008, 02:20 PM:
 
Let's see... my favorite Batman films (in order):

1) The Dark Knight (this may be, no exaggeration, the film I have waited for my entire life)
2) Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
3) Batman Begins
4) Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (I like Christian Bale, but Kevin Conroy IS Batman)
5) Batman Returns (it's kind of a mess, but knowing that Michelle Pfeifer did her own whip work is a real turn-on)
6) Batman: The Movie (1966) (Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb!)
7) Batman (1989) (I was crazy mad insane for this movie when it came out, but nearly two decades later, the cracks really show)
8) Batman Forever (possibly the first film ever where the title is a commentary on how long it feels to watch it)
9) Batman and Robin (only watch it with the RiffTrax, and be sure to wear special gloves when you handle the DVD)
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-06-2008, 03:36 PM:
 
After my third viewing I have decided the best performace in this movie is deliverd by Gary Oldman. He is so natural. He brings the Gordon character to life. I can't think of a movie he has done a poor job in.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-06-2008, 06:59 PM:
 
Fifth Element maybe? Then again I think everyone did a poor job in that, especially the scriptwriters.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2008, 10:45 PM:
 
Joe, it was just too "European" for your Rocky Mountain taste! Goofy works big in France! Just ask Jerry Lewis.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-07-2008, 12:56 AM:
 
WTF?
 

---

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 08-12-2008, 12:33 PM:
 
I thought Oldman was great in The 5th Element. He was supposed to chew the scenery, and chew it he did.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-12-2008, 12:50 PM:
 

quote: Geena Phillips

---

chew the scenery

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

...and yeah, this Joker is definitely doing a Nicholson impersonation. LISTEN to him! Cesar Romero didn't talk like that.

---

I did listen to him and I think you're completely wrong. Not only are the voices noticeably different, but he plays the character in a very different style from Jack did.

Further, just because their voices are closer to each other than they are to Cesar Romero doesn't mean anything. I'd say Heath wasn't impersonating either one of them.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-12-2008, 02:33 PM:
 
Chew The Scenery Definition
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-12-2008, 02:47 PM:
 
That poster's awesome, Joe!
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 08-12-2008, 06:53 PM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

I did listen to him and I think you're completely wrong. Not only are the voices noticeably different, but he plays the character in a very different style from Jack did.

Further, just because their voices are closer to each other than they are to Cesar Romero doesn't mean anything. I'd say Heath wasn't impersonating either one of them.

---

Agreed 100%
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-16-2008, 12:41 PM:
 
I suppose in a couple years we'll be having a debate whether Angelina Jolie is doing a Lee Meriwether or Julie Newmar impression.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 08-17-2008, 07:56 PM:
 
Wow is this way overrated. Maybe not for many but I didn't like it.
Went into this with no expectations.
2 and a half hours and nothing happens. Well nothing I found engaging.
Boring dialogue. No style. Batman sounding like...I don't know what.
I just felt ripped off. I left even before the main cast credtis finished. I usually sit all the way through.
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-18-2008, 03:40 AM:
 
I was in London last week and actually had the "pleasure" of watching two movies at Leicester Square. Well the first film I watched was The Dark Knight and boy was it good. As most of you say, Heith Ledger trully brings out a tremendous performance. I don't really liked Christian Bale in this one. Although he was good, we was not That good. It is a bit strange that this film actually focusses on 3 characters and not actually just the Batman. The title trully fits the film. Now moving on to some criticism:

The Batman: Although he did deliver a real dark vigilante character, I was not convinced that he actually fought for something good or fought for his own pleasure. SPOILER!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Look at the way for example he beats the hell out of Joker during questioning. Honestly I really felt sorry for the Joker in that scene. The tragedy in that scene is trully breathtaking considering that Heith Ledger introduces the background of how he has become like that and why he accepted it. And the fact that not even once feels fear of dying or show that the hits actually hurt him. I really felt sorry for the Joker at that point
!
!
!
1
1
!
!
END OF SPOILER

Basically Batman is fighting perhaps NOT for the good of Gotham in this movie but for the good of his own personal vendeta with himself and the people he loves.

The Joker: Nothing can be said and writen to justify how perfect Heith Ledger portrayed this character. I remember all people in the theater applauded when he first appeared which was trully touching. I feel that the Joker in this film is really the most iconic character and the one who deserves our sympathy. His life was traumatised by his father in his young age and thus he is forced to feel the way he feels about people. He actually puts the blame on the double faced society who shows one but is another "like the Batman" and thus everything concludes in this masterpiece:

Gordon: Well Gary Oldman is one my favourite actors and like every movie he identifies himself as one with the character. I have not seen another actor (except Al Pacino) who can be so sincere with his character and become one

Michael Cane: I actually did not care much for him! The way that he was portrayed like a father figure to Bruce Wayne did not really work.

Bruce Waynes' Love one: Honestly she sucked big time

SPOILER!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Harvey / Two Face: I did not read any of the spoiler here and I am glad I did. I liked the way he was introduced at the Good Knight who fought for the good of Gotham and that he did. Acting was superb but I was really dissapointed that he was introduced as the Two Face in such a little time and actually died in the end! That means that the next Batman most probably will have the Penguin.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
END OF SPOILER

Well to sum it all up, you will not get bored into this 2 and something hours film. I was more bored of the 20 minute previews and advertisements before the movie!

Now the theater really sucked. Chairs are in such a way that if a tall headed man sits in front of you you cannot see the screen. The theater I believe had Victoria 8 projectors ( peeked at the booth ) Sound was really awfull. Why do people think that boosting the surrounds actually make the experience better! During action sequences the dialogue was clearly inaudible. Bass was good though, Image was rock steady and really bright. The guy who trimmed the apperture plates did a piss poor job with the scope one but who cares.

Demetris
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-20-2008, 08:47 PM:
 

quote: Demetris Thoupis

---

His life was traumatised by his father in his young age

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Batman sounding like...I don't know what.

---

As ridiculous as Batman sounds, this gives rise to some fun times. The second weekend, my GM went to tell some kids who were talking to shut up, so he comes up in the row behind them, leans in between them, and in his best growly Batman voice, tells them they can't talk in the theater. Needless to say, freaked them the hell out. Maybe they'll think twice before talking during a movie next time!
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-25-2008, 11:12 AM:
 
Although the end result is an easy joke target, the need for Bruce Wayne disguise his voice is apparant. In the last Batman, you see the transition of his voice. When he first starts wearing a disguise, his voice is virtually the same. By the end of the movie, he has developed the same low rasp he delivers during the entire second movie. People just didn't notice the voice during the first one since he used it so little.

I don't know how else they could have done it. It would have been ridiculous for him to use an Austrailian accent or raise his voice and speak with a lisp or try ebonics or whatever and like someone said earlier, it's way better than Superman putting on a pair of glasses and taking the curl out of his bangs and suddenly being unrecognizable. I think Bale may just be a little limited in his voice acting ability, but the point is made.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-25-2008, 11:40 AM:
 
quote: Tim Reed
...and yeah, this Joker is definitely doing a Nicholson impersonation. LISTEN to him! Cesar Romero didn't talk like that.

Forget the voice, the mannerisms are pure Tom Waits!
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-25-2008, 12:28 PM:
 
They could have easily done anything they wanted with his voice in post-production. They chose what we hear in the film. Would it be better if he sounded like James Earl Jones?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-25-2008, 10:33 PM:
 
Location: Cinemark Carefree Circle, Colorado Springs, CO
Auditorium: #2 - IMAX
Format: IMAX (Mix of native IMAX and DMR'ed 'scope)
Rating: 4 stars out of 4

My first review is back on Page 5 of this thread. Having finally seen the IMAX version I wanted to post my 2¢ about it.

I checked out The Dark Knight at the one IMAX theater in Colorado Springs today. It's a good thing I watched the early show. Cinemark really needs to do something about the squeaky seats in the theater. A few people in the theater were making jokes about the seats, mainly that it's a good thing the crowd was light instead of filled with obnoxious teenagers. Fly Me To The Moon played earlier. I'm surprised the small companies who put that show together paid to have IMAX-3D blow up prints made of it.

It was fun to watch the movie a 2nd time to more carefully observe the performances from Heath Ledger and some of the other supporting cast members too. I feel more confident that Ledger will at least get a Best Supporting Actor nomination, if not win the award posthumously. It would be a huge snub if he isn't nominated at all.

On the other hand, Christian Bale's hoarse roaring voice as Batman was even more distracting now that I was paying more attention to it. I'll certainly acknowledge the point that if Batman spoke normally some people might be able to recognize him as really being Bruce Wayne. Still, the hoarse speaking thing still seemed silly.

The IMAX footage really took the movie to a new level at least during the parts that were filmed in IMAX. Some of the skyline shots of Chicago and Hong Kong were spectacular. Much of that feeling of scale will be lost when it is viewed on Blu-ray (or DVD). My complaints about the IMAX footage is that some of it was under-exposed -possibly in keeping with the overall dark nature of the movie, but also possibly in part because of the shooting challenges in using such a large film format. Lots of IMAX-based shots involving actors had a fairly low depth of field. This footage isn't quite as sharp as some other IMAX movies I've seen in the past. I don't know if that has more to do with the big T-stops and dark nature of the footage or the 8K digital intermediate treatment.

The 'scope (Panavision) footage looked as if it had been framed at around a 2:1 aspect ratio. I assume Warner Bros. put together a 4K level digital intermediate on the 35mm sourced footage (and then IMAX did their "DMR" thing to it). It seemed distracting how soft the 'scope footage looked compared to the IMAX stuff. I wasn't distracted at all in how the image would fill all of the huge screen for the IMAX footage and then go letterbox for the DMR stuff. What I found distracting was how the IMAX stuff had more sharp "pop" to it, and then that "pop" would disappear into softness when the 35mm sourced footage resumed. On the bright side, the movie had more IMAX-based footage than I figured it would.

Anyway, I recommend watching the IMAX version of The Dark Knight if you have a decent IMAX theater near you playing it. I overheard one guy in the audience telling some folks this was the 4th time he had seen the movie. The people he was talking to said they hadn't been to a theater in years.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2008, 01:20 AM:
 
I remember in Batman Begins that Batman's voice actually rumbled the subwoofers with dedicated and discrete low frequency information. I can't remember if Dark Knight did that. Anyway, Bats could turn the rumbling on and off at will. When he spoke to Katey Holmes about it being about what he does that defines him and all that nonsense, he sounds like a human, but just before that he had the built-in subwoofer in his voicebox. Some have speculated that the batsuit has a built-in voice modulator. I wonder why nobody complained about the voice thing with the previous movie.

Also, I am wondering how the Bl00-ray version of this movie will be presented. Will it fill up the entire 16:9 screen for the IMAX portions and then suddenly snap back to letterbox for the shitty 35mm stuff? Or will the whole thing be letterboxed? Maybe the next movie can be shot in glorious IMAX Digital™!!
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-26-2008, 02:15 AM:
 
On my Batman Begins Blu-Ray it has the Bank scene and it fills the entire screen and looks gorgeous. I don't know what that means but it did look great.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-26-2008, 09:18 AM:
 
Nolan has said that on Blu-ray the Imax sequences will be in 16:9.
 

---