The Dark Knight

[Zigurd]

sorry but your threads are boring thats why i didnt read your post.

no offense i like Putin.


:carduindisguise

*cries*

 

[Robcardu]

*cries*

no more tears big boy, you know i love you just as much as i love Putin.

 

[Line]

Nearly every professional critic would grade it above 6.5/10.

Dead or not dead, Ledger's performance automatically fullfills an above 7/10 rating.

A single performance, or any other technical act in a film, should only be graded as a means to an end and not the end itself. Giving that high of a score for a single performance is ludicrous.

I have a strong feeling Line is just bothered with the overhyping of Ledger.

No.

With everyone using Heath as their avatar on rotten tomatoes and the people rating the dark knight as the best movie of all time, I think that bothers him so he gives it a lower rating. If not, I'd like to hear his critique.

And you will, but you're completely wrong and presemptuous here.

I agree that Maggie Gyllenhall wasn't anything special. Her acting was better than Holmes, but her looks and dead personality make it impossible that Gotham's DA/hero and one of the richest men in the world would be all over her.

Another non-complaint of mine. Keep guessing.

A better question is why not?

No, not really.

It isn't the best movie of all time

Obviously.

but the overall package that the story brought was one of the best I have seen myself.

Best how? What separates it from other films outside of its genre? Sure, Nolan strived for something higher than "comic book" films have thought to achieve as of late but that doesn't mean it's a transcendent work on many (or any) other levels. This is why my initial question is of more pertinence than your counter.

I haven't seen as many movies as you though, and we don't have the same type of preference as well.

Fair enough.

I am looking forward to your critique, but as Flex said anything below a 7 is total BS....

Flex thought 300 was good.... :wutyousay:

 

[Braaq]

A single performance, or any other technical act in a film, should only be graded as a means to an end and not the end itself. Giving that high of a score for a single performance is ludicrous.

Who is talking about a single performance? Ledger did do an outstanding job in portraying probably the best villain ever, but the movie as a whole was outstanding and deserves a high score.

No, not really.

Just your opinion and nothing more, let your head shrink a little bit there little guy and get off your high horse.

Best how? What separates it from other films outside of its genre? Sure, Nolan strived for something higher than "comic book" films have thought to achieve as of late but that doesn't mean it's a transcendent work on many (or any) other levels. This is why my initial question is of more pertinence than your counter.

my counter?
Nolan did achieve something higher than the traditional "comic book" films as of late. He just raised the bar considerably. And why do you not think that it is not transcendent on may or any other levels? I just don't see that nor do I agree with your assessment.

Flex thought 300 was good.... :wutyousay:

It was a good movie, your opinion is not the end all be all of movie critiquing. Yes, you may know more about movies in comparison to members on a bodybuilding forum but that doesn't make your opinion count any more than ours... even though I know you would like to think so.

 

[Duality]

i know line is very technical with his rating of films and that is a good and bad thing. i think sometimes he doesn't look back at the film as a whole and realize just how well it all fit together and what a good job the cast and director did with this work. i think sometimes he breaks it up too much. idk i know i'm being presumptious here but that's just the vibe i get from his critique sometimes.

i thought the film was absolutely magnificent and really want to see it again. i don't see how even the harshest of critics can give this film less than 7/10.

 

[Line]

Who is talking about a single performance? Ledger did do an outstanding job in portraying probably the best villain ever, but the movie as a whole was outstanding and deserves a high score.

Re-read the quote I was commenting on from Flex. Thanks.

Just your opinion and nothing more, let your head shrink a little bit there little guy and get off your high horse.

I'm a fairly scholarly individual when it comes to cinema and I enjoy talking about it in serious matters. I'm not sure where this overly egotistical claim you're getting at is coming from but it's a bit disconcerting to your overall argument. While I didn't expand on the general notion of why it's bad to answer a question with another question (which is true) I did at least offer some insight as to why I felt this particular example was weak.

my counter?
Nolan did achieve something higher than the traditional "comic book" films as of late. He just raised the bar considerably. And why do you not think that it is not transcendent on may or any other levels? I just don't see that nor do I agree with your assessment.

In the broad scheme of film, what elevated TDK above its non-comic book counterparts? Especially in comparison to other films held in such high acclaim?

It was a good movie, your opinion is not the end all be all of movie critiquing. Yes, you may know more about movies in comparison to members on a bodybuilding forum but that doesn't make your opinion count any more than ours... even though I know you would like to think so.

Wait, are you arguing for 300 now too? Ouch.

So I have a more educated opinion and have continually demonstrated such both here and on movie forums yet all our "opinions" are held with equal accountability? I don't follow. Perhaps my quasi-harsh responses to topics regarding cinema have more to do with me wanting you to challenge yourselves than my just showing off. I've never said I was better, I'm just showing different and more divulged perspectives.

Spoiler

ZOMG, I just spelled out motive...just like the characters do in The Dark Knight!

i know line is very technical with his rating of films and that is a good and bad thing.

Technical how? I try to see the film, its characters, their motives, and its purpose for what it truly is. Breaking a picture down to such minutia isn't really a technical process at all. If anything I avoid the technical aspects and treat them as an after-thought of what the film truly is.

i think sometimes he doesn't look back at the film as a whole and realize just how well it all fit together and what a good job the cast and director did with this work.

Everything the cast and director do are, again, means to an end. I try to dissect that end and see how good of a job the movie did of reaching and fulfilling that purpose. This is an intellectual process, yes, something art should be afforded.

i think sometimes he breaks it up too much. idk i know i'm being presumptious here but that's just the vibe i get from his critique sometimes.

Knee-jerk, non-cognitive response, ftw!

i thought the film was absolutely magnificent and really want to see it again. i don't see how even the harshest of critics can give this film less than 7/10.

This is a fault of so many film-goers. Even in regard to my favorite films I can see what the criticisms of them could be, though they are often misguided. I'm not a reactionary viewer by any means, nor should the masses be. Think about what actually goes into a film and how said efforts reflect its place in cinema. This is a huge aspect of one of, if not the most complex art form. Why not treat it as such? It's one thing if one is willing to admit they enjoy movies for the pure thrill but to ignore very important critiques for the sake of such is ignorant, especially if we're unwilling to learn from it.

 

[Ironslave]

I'd give it a 7, and I'm not a film critic at all.

I'll watch it again later, but there were some holes in the plot in my opinion.

Spoiler

I thought it started out awesome, but got a bit far fetched towards the end. The whole stuff with Harvey becoming two-face was set up great, but then they kinda "killed" him off basically right away. Too rushed in that regard. I also thought it got a bit silly with the whole Joker planning on getting caught, and breaking out and such. It also didn't make much sense how they could "blame" Batman at the end, I mean, I know the public needs to be conned into believing something, but hadn't Batman already done tons fighting crime in the city?

It was also cheesy how Batman caught the Joker, using the whole collecting everyones cell phones thing and triangulating it somehow. That was just stupid (and a violation of civil liberties )

I'll watch it again and comment more.

 

[TJ]

I thought Heath and Christian were awesome in the movie; but that's not really a surprise. There were some things that didn't make sense in the movie and some blanks in the plot like others have said. Either way, this was one of the few movies that actually entertained me. I would say, regarding entertainment, that the movie deserves a 9.5 out of 10 and I'd rate Christian and Heath's performances about the same.

 

[Duality]

I'd give it a 7, and I'm not a film critic at all.

I'll watch it again later, but there were some holes in the plot in my opinion.

Spoiler

I thought it started out awesome, but got a bit far fetched towards the end. The whole stuff with Harvey becoming two-face was set up great, but then they kinda "killed" him off basically right away. Too rushed in that regard. I also thought it got a bit silly with the whole Joker planning on getting caught, and breaking out and such. It also didn't make much sense how they could "blame" Batman at the end, I mean, I know the public needs to be conned into believing something, but hadn't Batman already done tons fighting crime in the city?

It was also cheesy how Batman caught the Joker, using the whole collecting everyones cell phones thing and triangulating it somehow. That was just stupid (and a violation of civil liberties )

I'll watch it again and comment more.

hey man for a superhero movie this is as realistic as it gets. no one has superpowers and it has to stay within the realm of reality. despite some of those schemes being far fetched (even though in the film the joker is someone smart and kniving enough to pull off something like that) it was immensely entertaining. i didn't quite understand the concept behing the whole "cell phone sonar" thing, but still though it was a very cool concept (and totally justifiable, batman saved countless hostages thanks to that device and prevented the joker from detonating both ships. civil liberties my ass, lives were at stake. you need to take action.) and i liked that after it's use it was destroyed. but it's temporary use was highly warranted.


edit: there's no spoiler tags in my post, but you have to be pretty dense to even go into this thread having not seen the film and not expect a discussion that would give things away. if you haven't seen it, GO SEE IT!

 

[Pain]

I couldn't help but laugh everytime batman talked, his voice sounds so forced and corny. Heath stole the show. Good movie, not as good as Begins though.

6/10

 

[Robcardu]

I couldn't help but laugh everytime batman talked, his voice sounds so forced and corny. Heath stole the show. Good movie, not as good as Begins though.

6/10

Begins sucked IMO.

 

[Pain]

Begins sucked IMO.

Thats nice to know. :wutyousay:

 

[Flex]

A single performance, or any other technical act in a film, should only be graded as a means to an end and not the end itself. Giving that high of a score for a single performance is ludicrous.

Take the stick out of your ass Line, it was just a figure of speech. I'm not a film critic, but if I were I would not watch one single performance and base a rating off that.

nother non-complaint of mine. Keep guessing.

Ok, another guess. Because Christopher Nolan left directing your favorite type of movies such as Momento, for more money in Batman. I'd find it hard to believe these reasons had nothing to do with your harsh rating.

Flex thought 300 was good.... :wutyousay:

What's your point? There's almost no better movie to see for some action, thrill, and excitement. 90% of America would agree with me on that. Not that that makes a difference, but when I said it was a good movie; I never meant it as an oscar worthy film. It's just a great film for a good time. You seriously need to loosen up when you watch movies.

If you were a critic on this show, I doubt anyone would want to hear you put down every film that is successful in the masses.

 

[Robcardu]

Thats nice to know. :wutyousay:

wanna duke it out in the street?? :carduindisguise

 

[Flex]

I couldn't help but laugh everytime batman talked, his voice sounds so forced and corny. Heath stole the show. Good movie, not as good as Begins though.

6/10

I agree, next time he should talk with his natural voice, and it would be very realistic when nobody realizes it's him. Then maybe in the sequel he can run around without a mask, like Clark Kent. As long as he wears glasses as Bruce Wayne, his identity will stay hidden.

 

[Pain]

I agree, next time he should talk with his natural voice, and it would be very realistic when nobody realizes it's him. Then maybe in the sequel he can run around without a mask, like Clark Kent. As long as he wears glasses as Bruce Wayne, his identity will stay hidden.

I know he has to disquise his voice, its still very corny.

 

[Flex]

I know he has to disquise his voice, its still very corny.

I actually really do agree though, his voice was much worse in DK than BB. At times it's difficult to tell what he says.

"What makes you different from any of us!!??"

"I'm not wearing hockey paaaaads"

 

[Tech]

 

[Pain]

That scene made me cringe. Brilliant.

 

[Tonyk212000]

From someone who knows alot about comics characters and pasts. This is without a doubt the best comic book movie ever made in terms of correctly portraying the characters and as well as the history of them.

I agree with everyone about line he is being way to critical of the movie because its not a academy award movie such as There Will Be Blood which personally I didnt like. I think The Dark Knight is better at Heath Ledgers portrayal is better than Daniel Day-Lewis portrayal of Daniel Plainview.