[Execute]

What's hilarious is the three other people I went with had no fucking idea Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face.

[dAfTiE]

Thanks for the review.
Doesn't open here until the 25th, can't wait to go see it.

[Cnyle33]

I would give the film a 10/10. I was thoroughly entertained and I can't find anything wrong with the film. Ledger gave a stellar performance and Bale as Batman is just as good as he was in Batman Begins. I see no reason to give it anything less than a 10/10.

[Bullitt68]

Originally Posted by Cnyle33

Bale as Batman is just as good as he was in Batman Begins.

So he was bad?

Sorry. I can't help it.

[Cnyle33]

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

So he was bad?

Sorry. I can't help it.

Haha I thought he did great in Begins. The voice needs work but besides that he's good.

[blackthorne]

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

So you're saying it's damn-near perfect? I like your reviews and we do have [sort of] similar taste in film (although I loved Burton's Batman films) but I have a hard time believing that.

Everyone's going to have their opinions, though. And I'm glad you reviewed it as opposed to a, "OMG! Best fucking movie EVAR!" review.

I would call it damn near perfect as a superhero film, but what does that really say? That it works BECAUSE it avoids the sterotypical mechanics of a superhero film? Yes and no. Judged as a superhero film, you get something far more ambitious. Judged as an action/crime film you get what is essentially a good story with great performances (and there are many good ones) combined with the theatre of comic book trappings. If that makes any sense. it's both, but neither, I really can't explain it.

If you didn't like the first one, however- and for me the novelty of the real world setting kind of wears off on repeat viewings- there's still a very good chance you'll like this one. It has the iconic villain you'd expect, for you way less Freeman (even compared to his role in the first film), and it's just much tighter.

[Bullitt68]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

I would call it damn near perfect as a superhero film, but what does that really say? That it works BECAUSE it avoids the sterotypical mechanics of a superhero film? Yes and no. Judged as a superhero film, you get something far more ambitious. Judged as an action/crime film you get what is essentially a good story with great performances (and there are many good ones) combined with the theatre of comic book trappings. If that makes any sense. it's both, but neither, I really can't explain it.

If you didn't like the first one, however- and for me the novelty of the real world setting kind of wears off on repeat viewings- there's still a very good chance you'll like this one. It has the iconic villain you'd expect, for you way less Freeman (even compared to his role in the first film), and it's just much tighter.

I get what you're saying. It works not because it's from a comic but because it takes that fact and goes one further.

Good to hear Morgan Freeman's ubiquitous face won't be center stage, as well

How breathtaking was the IMAX technology cinematography of the city landscape? For me, Burton's Expressionistic Gotham cityscape is magnificent, but at the same time, all of the shots I've seen of the city in TDK have looked even more spectacular than Collateral, which had fantastic nighttime cityscape cinematography.

I have a feeling both imaginings of Gotham, Burton's and Nolan's, are going to be mesmerizing, just in different ways.

[blackthorne]

Just to clarify there are still some problems I had with it.

For one, I said from day one Rachel Dawes wasn't a shitty character just because of Katie Holmes, but because her part is written as a shitty bland character. Maggie didn't change a thing and wasn't as good as eye candy to boot (even post-Cruise era Katie Holmes).

Second, the film never really overstays its welcome, but you get the sense that it does, especially in the last 20 minutes.

Also, the fight scenes fucking suck. There is absolutely great action in the film, but the fight scenes are repetitive, and bland. At least you can actually see what;s going on this time as opposed to last, where Nolan directed the hand to hand stuff like his camera was stuck in a laundry machine.

[blackthorne]

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

I get what you're saying. It works not because it's from a comic but because it takes that fact and goes one further.

Good to hear Morgan Freeman's ubiquitous face won't be center stage, as well

How breathtaking was the IMAX technology cinematography of the city landscape? For me, Burton's Expressionistic Gotham cityscape is magnificent, but at the same time, all of the shots I've seen of the city in TDK have looked even more spectacular than Collateral, which had fantastic nighttime cityscape cinematography.

I have a feeling both imaginings of Gotham, Burton's and Nolan's, are going to be mesmerizing, just in different ways.

The movie is good enough on its own that you'll still have a great time, but the IMAX experience definitely enhances that. It's not just Chicago landscapes that get the beautiful IMAX gloss, but Asia as well- you'll see- and it's absolutely breathtaking.

That's another thing Nolan really improves upon from the first film- the sense of scale, and geography. Gotham is a lot more realized.

[viruswitshoes]

this film is just as relevant to our world and our society as the greek morality plays were to them. it truly is a classic in every sense of the word.

i don't normally like superhero/comic book movies, but this one just nails it.