The Dark Knight - Grading & Discussion

[S. Gomez]

I couldn't really see the differences between the two suits; I mean it was pretty dark at times! I think the new suit looks fine, though, and I don't have any problems with it.

I do like how they acknowledged it in the movie itself, instead of just having it pop up at the beginning and letting it pass without comment.

 

[Crewman6]

I couldn't really see the differences between the two suits; I mean it was pretty dark at times! I think the new suit looks fine, though, and I don't have any problems with it.

I do like how they acknowledged it in the movie itself, instead of just having it pop up at the beginning and letting it pass without comment.

It seems like the conversations about the new suit were done specifically so that we'd buy into Batman's vulnerability, particularly in light of the fact that he gets shot later in the movie.

Without that dialogue, one might assume, "hey, he's in no danger, he's got his Batsuit on!".

I would have no problem with them changing the suit in between films, we don't need to see every little thing on screen and can make assumptions about the passage of time.

But this was a necessary bit of business to set up that, no, he's not invincible even when in costume.

 

[davejames]

See.... the armor never bothered me, although I am no authority nor a dyed-in-the-wool fan of the Batman franchise. Even so, the armor seemed a logical addition to the Batsuit, simply because of whast he does and that he is human.

Not that I am trying to be contentious, but what is it about the armor that is so bothersome? Is it the particular style in this film? Is it the fact that ti's there at all?

I don't mind the fact that he's wearing armor (the Burton suits, which I love, were armor too), I just didn't care for the design of it-- particularly the small, round cowl with the tiny mouth opening, short little ears, and skinny neck. And then there's the barely discernable bat symbol and black, lifeless cape.

I understand they were probably trying to tone down the "bat-ness" of the suit, and make it more functional and believable, but the result was something that, for my money, just didn't have enough of that iconic Batman look to it.

 

[N-121973]

So did anybody else think Two-Face's scarring was a little... over the top? Yeah it was a really shocking and powerful effect, but it seemed to belong to a totally different movie.

I think it would have been more than enough simply to have the left side of the face severely burned-- not completely ripped away like something out of a zombie movie.

Yeah, "perhaps." That kind of severe damage isn't entirely possible for someone to suffer from and survive. Shock and pain would've killed him alone not the least of which would be infection.

But it was just so damn GOOD and awesome, and "true" to the look of the character. Seeing his entire eyeball there and his teeth, and the inside of his mouth when he took a drinking (with some dribbling on his chin) and, pretty much just seeing his SKULL there was just... GREAT.

Far better than what they did with TLJ in Forever.

Over the top? A little.

Greusome? Absolutely. Which is why I loved it.

And thats the reason why I'm not going to see this movie in the cinema. I've never been a fan of gory things. Sounds a little silly for an adult to say but its true. With Batman Begins I saw it 3 times in the cinema, which is a record for me, and I was counting down the days until the DVD came out (which I've subsequently gone on to watch to death). But with this film, ever since I found out Two-Face was going to be in it and just how disfigured he would be it's been steadily losing its appeal. I still wish the movie well and I'm elated at the critical praise and box office returns that its so far generated. I guess all those on the thread to do with box office returns who predicted that Batman would be the winner this Summer were right. I hope as well that the DVD will be out this side of Christmas, I'll definately get it (perhaps as a present), but I don't really fancy going to the cinema and seeing something gruesome up on the big screen. Just how bad does Two-Face look compared with say

Spoiler: Heroes Season 2

Nathan Pettrelli's injuries

? As unpleasant as those injuries were I could put up with that. I figured that maybe Chris Nolan would have gone with something similar to Mel Gibson's appearance in 'The Man Without a Face', albeit up a notch or two. Also how much is there of Two Face screen-time wise? Does he where a 'split suit'?
On a whimsical note, I realised a very tenous coincidence. In 1989 a new Indiana Jones film, 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' was released which did extremely well critically and commercially. Later that same summer a Batman film described by some as 'dark and gritty' was released which pitted Batman against the Joker and performed brilliantly at the box office. Also that year a James Bond film that took itself more seriously than most 'License to Kill' was released set in Latin America.
In 2008 a new Indiana Jones film, 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' was released which did extremely well critically and commercially. Later in the Summer a Batman film that many would regard as 'dark and gritty' pitting Batman against the Joker performed brilliantly at the box office. Also in 2008 a James Bond film that took itslef more seriously than most, at least partly set in Latin America 'Quantum of Solace' was released.
I know its tenuous, but what the heck.

 

[PsychoPere]

And thats the reason why I'm not going to see this movie in the cinema. I've never been a fan of gory things. Sounds a little silly for an adult to say but its true.

Harvey's injuries really weren't all that difficult to look at. Take a look here and see what you think. Overall, there's very little "gore" in The Dark Knight; most things are implied, rather than shown -- and the more powerful for it, I thought.

 

[davejames]

Two-Face's injury goes far beyond what Petrelli had (or Claire's burns in another episode, for that matter). I wouldn't let it keep me from seeing the movie though. Yeah it's shocking and horrible at first, but it's kinda supposed to be. And as extreme as it is, it's not like there's blood and gore shooting out of his head or anything. lol

 

[archeryguy1701]

As far as Harvey's injuries, they actually go to decent lengths to keep you from seeing it. There are times where it's there, but they spend a lot of time either looking at him from the right side or they have his left side in darkness. As for violence, there is no gore. The only things that could have been gorey were implied and off screen. It's not that bad.

Watched it again last night and still loved it. Very entertaining, and I absolutely love the ending monologue by Gordon. Very powerful. Last night, there were some kids that looked no older than ten, and likely younger. They weren't taking the movie very well.

On another note to those who are familiar with the comics, is there a bad guy who has really heavy eye liner? I seem to recall one, but I can't remember his name, and the Mayor reminded me of him. The next bad guy perhaps?

 

[N-121973]

Thanks for the responses folks, I appreciate that. When I said gory I really meant just Two-Face as opposed to the film in general. And PsychoPete, you were right, the image you linked to wasn't that bad at all. I just got the impression that the image on the link was what some fan had produced and the real thing would be even worse and with people talking about upset stomachs from looking at him. I notice there hasn't been any official pics of Harvey Dent as Two-Face.
By the way, what do you think about my 1989/2008 comparison?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

On another note to those who are familiar with the comics, is there a bad guy who has really heavy eye liner? I seem to recall one, but I can't remember his name, and the Mayor reminded me of him. The next bad guy perhaps?

Nestor Carbonell wasn't wearing eye-liner. He has naturally thick eyelashes, as can been seen in his other productions like Suddenly Susan and LOST.

 

[davejames]

I wish this movie would hurry up and get on DVD. I'm dying to see it again, but don't really want to have to pay the $10 and wait in line again.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I want it on DVD, too, but I'll settle for watching it again when I go see The X-Files: I Want to Believe (movies are much cheaper here).

 

[Aragorn]

I wish this movie would hurry up and get on DVD. I'm dying to see it again, but don't really want to have to pay the $10 and wait in line again.

At a multiplex, you could always watch one movie then sneak into Batman. So it'd be two for the price of one!

 

[Jack Bauer]

^^^ Gee, that sounds familiar...

 

[Trippy]

Well, I just got back from seeing the early matinee (it was practically empty) but a definate excellent vote from me...much better than Batman Begins, which I liked ok enough, but it didn't leave me with a "wow" feeling like this one did

Ledger was magnificent

 

[DarthPipes]

The film grossed almost $24.5 million dollars on Monday. On MONDAY! That's obscene.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

And thats the reason why I'm not going to see this movie in the cinema. I've never been a fan of gory things. Sounds a little silly for an adult to say but its true.

Harvey's injuries really weren't all that difficult to look at. Take a look here and see what you think. Overall, there's very little "gore" in The Dark Knight; most things are implied, rather than shown -- and the more powerful for it, I thought.

Hardly a single drop of blood appears in the entire movie, even in places where there should be. I think a lot of that simply has to do with the MPAA rating. The whole thing is so dark anyway and Two-Face is just gruesome enough that they're barely holding onto their PG-13 as it is. Getting rid of any actual blood is their legal trickery out of an R.

As for Two-Face's injuries, assuming that he could possibly survive that, wouldn't getting half his lips burned off give him a pretty severe lisp, at least at first?

 

[coolghoul]

The fact that the movie is depressing doesn't mean it should be R-rated; you could make a G-rated film about similar themes.

Not depressing alone. It's disturbing. To the point, where I think it should be rated as something too disturbing not recommended for the tweens. Part of the problem lies with the limitations in the current rating system and how it works in America. Going into gross generalizations, but in America an R for violence might not necessarily mean that parents won't bring their kids in. I personally am fine with kids being able to see R for violence movies in many cases. Something like The Pathfinder isn't really a major problem for most kids in the US. However, this is disturbing material. Even tho' we don't get to see shots of the actual violence, it's the implication of goriness that is so masterfully handled by Chris Nolan. I actually held up a hand partially covering the scene (unconsciously) to block out any disturbing visual as the Joker talks about how he got his scar (the Dad story - not the wife story that he recounts to Rachel Dawes) because I could almost see it coming. And Chris knew the audience reaction - he never actually showed what happens next. It's not necessary. It's been telegraphed so graphically into my mind that he's done his job - the visual is not necessary and would be overkill and actually detract from that masterful scene

And that's what I mean by the disturbing quality in this movie. It's not meant for below 14 or so crowd simply because of the disturbing implications of what we see/feel/think as we watch that movie.

 

[davejames]

Speaking of the lack of blood... was it clear to anybody how The Joker actually killed that black mob boss early on? He's holding the guy's head with both hands, ready to slice him open, yet when the camera pans away we hear what sounds like a gun shot. Or was that sound just for dramatic effect? His body definitely looked pretty lifeless for just being cut.

I could sense I wasn't the only one in the audience confused by this either. Which is too bad, considering the great buildup.

 

[S. Gomez]

^I thought it was just a music crash, no sound effect.

I remember in that scene I was like, "He's not gonna do it. He's just freaking the guy out. He's not really gonna--Oh..."

 

[davejames]

^I thought it was just a music crash, no sound effect.

I remember in that scene I was like, "He's not gonna do it. He's just freaking the guy out. He's not really gonna--Oh..."

Yeah that's what I meant, a music crash. So did Joker stab the guy in the head or something? His body dropped like a rock, which I wouldn't expect from having your face sliced open.