Tommy "Tiny" Lister, who first debuted as Zeus in the WWF. Has been in a ton of movies and TV shows. Probably best known as the President in The Fifth Element or the Klingon in the pilot of Enterprise.
The Dark Knight - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Tommy "Tiny" Lister, who first debuted as Zeus in the WWF. Has been in a ton of movies and TV shows. Probably best known as the President in The Fifth Element or the Klingon in the pilot of Enterprise.
I was confused by this. I thought Batman told Gordon he was going to get Rachel while they get Dent. Did I hear him wrong? If I didn't then why did he get Dent instead of her?
A
Avilos
Guest
Did the Joker simply lie about whom was at each location? That is what I assumed.
Ledger was fantastic as the Joker, there's no disputing that. But I can't help but feel that a character with as much power as Two-Face wound up being wasted in the film's third act. I'm really torn, because if he's actually dead, the character has been used up for good, but if he's alive, the dramatic arc of the movie has been ruined.
Much of this evaluation is hindsight. With Ledger's death, both the Joker and Two-Face are essentially out of the picture (along with Falcone and Rha's Al Ghul). Scarecrow is reduced to a tertiary character in this film (and he was only secondary in the previous one). It's a shame they've cycled through so many villains so quickly.
And, speaking of villains, not that this film needed more of them, but wasn't Harley Quinn supposed to be in The Dark Knight? Did her scenes get cut, or did I just miss her?
People out there seem to think that The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, a great film. I wouldn't go that far. But it is as good as Batman Begins, with its own set of virtues and flaws--and the virtues far outnumber the flaws. The truck chase was a standout scene, as were many others. I'd give it a B+ or an A- on a letter grade. As it stands, I'll have to go with excellent.
Much of this evaluation is hindsight. With Ledger's death, both the Joker and Two-Face are essentially out of the picture (along with Falcone and Rha's Al Ghul). Scarecrow is reduced to a tertiary character in this film (and he was only secondary in the previous one). It's a shame they've cycled through so many villains so quickly.
And, speaking of villains, not that this film needed more of them, but wasn't Harley Quinn supposed to be in The Dark Knight? Did her scenes get cut, or did I just miss her?
People out there seem to think that The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, a great film. I wouldn't go that far. But it is as good as Batman Begins, with its own set of virtues and flaws--and the virtues far outnumber the flaws. The truck chase was a standout scene, as were many others. I'd give it a B+ or an A- on a letter grade. As it stands, I'll have to go with excellent.
You are remembering correctly. Joker gave the locations, and when Batman was running out, he yelled something to the effect of, "I'm going for Rachel!" I also seem to recall (not sure since it was 2 or 3 in the morning) a line that talks about how Batman wasn't going to tell Dent that he was actually going for Rachel
^^ ah, that clears things up a bit, I was confused by that too and figured I just didn't hear it right
Why? Batman stories have been written consecutively for 69 years, with really only a few villains being recurring characters. Nolan has shown he can successfully introduce organized criminals, corporate criminals, psychopaths and terrorists into Batman's movie world without anyone getting short shrift and providing compelling conflict.
You know what I'd love to see? A completely original villain (or set of villains) in the next film. Nothing says superhero movies have to use any particular character from the comics, or go back to the well to reinterpret villains yet again. Considering where this movie has gone, the next film could simply have Batman struggling with Gotham's PD, federal law enforcement and corrupt politicians. Maybe the next story will focus primarily on Batman and Gordon being forced to be on opposite sides of the law while crime makes a come back in Gotham. Any of that would be really interesting and innovative.
I think that's a good idea. But if you go the set route maybe one new and one familiar. Maybe one of those bat impersonators becomes the opposite of Batman...
I don't know why but part of me thought of Bane with the prisoners.
Okay, so the Joker gives Batman the locations, but lies about who is at the locations. But it doesn't look like the police made any effort to get to Rachel's locations, so I guess they just suck.
I have a feeling it was probably the editing that made that part a bit hard to follow.Anyway, despite a few moments that confused me (and will probably make more sense when I rewatch it) I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie. So many great performances, and it was really engrossing story.
Okay, so the Joker gives Batman the locations, but lies about who is at the locations. But it doesn't look like the police made any effort to get to Rachel's locations, so I guess they just suck.
They were right outside when the building she was in exploded.
Okay, so the Joker gives Batman the locations, but lies about who is at the locations. But it doesn't look like the police made any effort to get to Rachel's locations, so I guess they just suck.
They were right outside when the building she was in exploded.
I must have gotten the two explosions confused. It looked like they were right outside when Batman dragged out Harvey Dent. I found the editing to be a bit confusing in some parts, but I'm sure it'll be easier to follow the second time around. I really enjoyed it.
I followed it pretty easily and easily interpeted that the Joker had lied about the location of his two captives.
Joker's lying about the locations would make perfect sense. Guess I will just have to go see it again to be sure. 
Of course, I'm not sure we can tell which location is which address.
But... I almost hope it turns out he was not lying, that Batman was all along intending to go for Harvey. Somehow that seems the more selfless act, something in keeping with his later sacrifice of his reputation. What I want to see in a reviewing are two things: 1.) what in the dialogue does Batman say in regards to which person he's going after. 2.) If he was going after Rachel, does Batman have any kind of surprised reaction when he arrives and sees Harvey instead?
archeryguy, the only thing I can remember Bruce saying about "Harvey can't ever know ... " was that Rachel was going to come back to him (to Bruce, that is). By that time, the viewer knows differently, but it was a line played for a bit of irony, I guess. Of course, that may be completely different from what you are recalling.
Of course, I'm not sure we can tell which location is which address.But... I almost hope it turns out he was not lying, that Batman was all along intending to go for Harvey. Somehow that seems the more selfless act, something in keeping with his later sacrifice of his reputation. What I want to see in a reviewing are two things: 1.) what in the dialogue does Batman say in regards to which person he's going after. 2.) If he was going after Rachel, does Batman have any kind of surprised reaction when he arrives and sees Harvey instead?
archeryguy, the only thing I can remember Bruce saying about "Harvey can't ever know ... " was that Rachel was going to come back to him (to Bruce, that is). By that time, the viewer knows differently, but it was a line played for a bit of irony, I guess. Of course, that may be completely different from what you are recalling.
Trust me .... that point was not lost on me. Batman not only bears up morally in the face of his loss... he also willingly gives up something, his reputation and symbolic imagery, so he in effect loses even more. And yet maintains his moral center, shaky though it may be at times.
^^That may be what I'm remembering. I recalled them discussing how Harvey can't know something, but I guess that something didn't stick with me very long.
He clearly says he is going after Rachel. He did not expect to see Dent.
I have to say, this is one of the few movies I've ever seen that's been hyped as the greatest thing since canned beer that I didn't leave feeling let down in any way. This wasn't just a superhero movie, it was a capital "f" Film, perhaps the first one the genre has had since Dick Donner's Superman.
The actors were all outstanding. Certainly Heath Ledger deserves all the praise that's been heaped upon him, but it's really a film about four characters: Batman, Joker, Gordon, and Dent, and it wouldn't have been nearly as good if Bale, Oldman, and Eckhart had been off their game even a smidge. I think they all deserve to be nominated for awards for their performances.
I keep wanting to say that I'm disappointed that Harvey/Two-Face won't be back in the third film, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense for his character to have had a single-film arc. As someone else pointed out a few pages ago, Nolan's really been burning through the rogues' gallery (though the future lack of any appearances by the Joker couldn't be anticipated), but if he keeps burning through it like this, with such outstanding performances, I won't complain too much.
One thing I did notice that has improved: the editing isn't quite as rapid-fire as in Batman Begins, yet the film has as much kinetic energy as its predecessor, if not more. I hated how you could barely tell what was going on during the fight sequences in Begins, so this really made me happy. I mean, why bother going to the trouble of staging these fight sequences if you don't present them in a way that the audience can appreciate what was being done?
The actors were all outstanding. Certainly Heath Ledger deserves all the praise that's been heaped upon him, but it's really a film about four characters: Batman, Joker, Gordon, and Dent, and it wouldn't have been nearly as good if Bale, Oldman, and Eckhart had been off their game even a smidge. I think they all deserve to be nominated for awards for their performances.
I keep wanting to say that I'm disappointed that Harvey/Two-Face won't be back in the third film, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense for his character to have had a single-film arc. As someone else pointed out a few pages ago, Nolan's really been burning through the rogues' gallery (though the future lack of any appearances by the Joker couldn't be anticipated), but if he keeps burning through it like this, with such outstanding performances, I won't complain too much.
One thing I did notice that has improved: the editing isn't quite as rapid-fire as in Batman Begins, yet the film has as much kinetic energy as its predecessor, if not more. I hated how you could barely tell what was going on during the fight sequences in Begins, so this really made me happy. I mean, why bother going to the trouble of staging these fight sequences if you don't present them in a way that the audience can appreciate what was being done?
Don't know if anyone posted this but for a time Gordan did have a son. He didn't appear in the Batman books though outside of a mention or two. I think he was a military character. But with all the mess DC has been doing with it's continuity he could have been written out all together.
This movie should get a nom for best picture as well as best supporting actor. I actually clapped ast the end something I have never done at the end of a movie.
My thoughts exactly! Don't get me wrong I think it's a good film but the ending really ticked me off. Maybe I have to watch it a couple of more times but I'm sticking with my B+ rating.