Originally posted by ImpedimentI also didn't like the fact that there was no "Joker gas". It would have been fun to see. However, I realize that this was meant to be a much more realistic imagining than comic book-esque.
It could be a matter of opinion. But during the bank robbery the grenade in the mouth of the guy could have been laughing gas. We just never saw what happens next.
Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Same here. I thought the damn sonar was a Daredevil rip-off. The effect at least.-The voice bothered me a bit. He was trying to hard.
-The frikking mask bothered me. It was too bulky.(I know, i know, its supposed to be one of the first versions but still).
-The end bugged me a bit. What he and Gordon agreed. I fully understand why he did it but he shouldnt had to takeSpoiler:.
the blame for killing the copsOverall, great movie!
LOL, how did you not understand the end?
Dent was the "light" of the city. He gave the people hope. If he had been labeled as a murderer, then everything he did would have been for nothing. The citizens already saw Batman as a non-hero so it was no big deal for him to take the blame.
They bashed that message over and over. It's hard to miss 😆
Originally posted by chithappens
Look the sacrifices the man made. It's not really a huge surprise. Everyone was getting killed at that point and it seemed everyone was too scared to stand up to crime.Made sense to me.
Yeah, I mean if I'm the Mayor I want to put someone in the office that's been getting thingsa done. And from what I saw, he was the only one getting anything done. Well, the only one getting anything done that wasn't a vigilante or the District Attourney.
Originally posted by BigRed
The only complaint I can come up with is Maggie Gyllenhaal. Her acting wasn't bad by any means. Just decent compared to the other actors IMO. Not even much of a flaw considering it is overly compensated by the greatness of the rest of the film.
Maggie to me is a far, far, far greater actress than Katie Holmes. She brung a much better atmosphere to the character and looked better when she was on screeen
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
The character did suck, but Maggie Gyllanhaal made people like her more.
Spoiler:. I could have taken Maggie or Katie really. Maggie was slightly less annoying but she was harder on the eyes and all in all, Rachel just sucks.
weren't upset when she blew up and found her fickle
Originally posted by chithappens
I think it's time I pay homage to DK for the Joker avatar. He has had that up for months having not even seen the movie.Prophet? 😂
See, damn right. I don't know if I was the first, but I know there were a HELL of a lot less Joker themed avatars. I've been singing the praises of this movie for a year now. And I don't think it has much to do with anything other than my extreme confidence in Nolan that was inspired by the fantastic job he did with Begins. The Joker has been one of my heroes since I was a kid. That's why they called me Joker in middle school. And even I was unsure about the casting of Ledger, but I knew Nolan saw something and that was good enough for me. I was also weary at first about him wearing make-up, but as soon as I saw that first picture of him, with the torn open face, I was sold.
And I'm changing it tomorrow, because it's just become far too confusing for me. The other day I read a post and I asked myself what the hell I was thinking when I wrote that. I thought "I don't even think that about the subject." Well it wasn't me. It was one of the 160,000 other people with the same avatar.
I only hate, hate, hate one thing about TDK.
It's 10-20 minutes too long. 😐
Now, you might ask "why do I hate it?". You know why? Because of it being too long, I couldn't fully go out of the theatre with the insane adrenaline pumping in my body, and it's why I can't look at the hype it gets and fully, honestly say "Damnit, this really is one of the greatest movies ever made". It's my favorite superhero movie of all time, to be sure, and I'm probably listing it as one of my all-time favorites, but why, Chris, why? Why did you ruin one of the only movies I'd give a 10/10, and instead reduce it to an ALMOST perfect movie?
An almost perfect movie is like getting an A-. It's perfect... oh crap.
So, in the end, I give this movie a 9.5/10. Incredible, incredible movie. But, sadly, a minor- but nontheless glaring- prevent cinematic perfection from being achieved.
And now I'm gonna go watch it again. Maybe it won't bother me as much a second time.