Bullets 'n' Babes

IMAX Director's Cut - 4.5/5
A solidly plotted action thriller, perfectly paced and with not a single ounce of fat. Well edited action scenes, the fight scene cinematography had improved significantly since the original.

All around a significant improvement over the last film, with a meaty villain and vastly better pacing.

The performances were solid for the most past (ERIC ROBERTS, no need to say more really.), with Ledger stealing every scene he was in. Aaron Eckhart was quite impressive in his role and his character's progression was clearly the most fleshed out of them all.

The usage of IMAX photography during the pivotal action scenes and long shots was quite effective and they were well shot IMO; definitely adding to grandeur of an already epic film.

Yeah, I was well chuffed with the fight scenes this time around - it's how I wanted Batman to fight in Batman Begins and was let down when the editing masked it all.

How did the IMAX presentation make the changes to the AR Eva, was it instantaneous and flow seamlessly?

Oh, and get yer arse over to the DVDMystere round FFS!

IMAX "Director's Cut"? Since when was it a director's cut? I wasn't aware of any changed / extra scenes.

Shingster wrote:was it instantaneous and flow seamlessly?

Yes. So seamlessly that my friend didn't even notice the different/changing ARs.

IronMonkey wrote:IMAX "Director's Cut"? Since when was it a director's cut? I wasn't aware of any changed / extra scenes.

I'll just CnP the response that I gave Brad in the other thread.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Because the IMAX presentation with its shifting aspect ratios is Nolan's intended version.

If you really want to be anal then you could call it the "Director's Edition" or something to that effect, but really who gives a shit? That's like insisting that a blackboard be called a chalk board, because they aren't actually black.

Saying you saw it at an IMAX would have sufficed it's certainly not worthy of being differentiated as a DC.

Yeah, its not a "Director's Cut", or even a "Director's Edition". Both terms imply that the film has been altered in some way which affects the actual story. The only way The Dark Knight differs on IMAX is because they used different cameras for 6 sequences.

You saw The Dark Knight in an IMAX cinema. Simple.

What an outstanding Superhero film. Like Eva says, it's so epic. I cannot fault it at all. It's much better than the first one.

It's easily in my top 3 Superhero films ever. Heath Ledger is awesome as The Joker, his mannerisms were so good. I disagree that Batman is a side character though.

This year is so much better than last year for Hollywood films, and to think QOS is still to come. Happy Times!

EvaUnit02 wrote:Yes. So seamlessly that my friend didn't even notice the different/changing ARs.

Cool. That bodes well for the BD.

bradavon wrote:
This year is so much better than last year for Hollywood films, and to think QOS is still to come. Happy Times!

Yeah, I agree. 2008 is a good year so far. Not just for movies btw, but for gaming as well. I was even thinking of starting a thread about it, praising all the cool stuff that has come out this year already, but hadnt come around to it yet...

I'm going to see this on Monday.

Will post my thoughts then...

Not an Eric Roberts fan, Eva?

Ironman was also decent, the story was strong. Pity it was spoilt by barely any and lacklustre action.

A decent story is crucial but so is action for a superhero film. I have high hopes for the sequel. Even so it was much better than most of the tosh of last year (except for Bourne Ultimatum).

This has now cleared $300 million in the usa and is on course to top $500 million. X-Files 2 on the other hand is a huge flop,pity really think they left it too long between movies.

Definitely. Way, way too long. A whole decade later. I'll probably go and see it. I liked X-Files.

Not really into sci-fi/alien type stories. Doubt I'll even bother renting the DVD. They do seem to have missed the boat by about a decade.

THE DARK KNIGHT 3.75/5

Saw this today. Though it was quite good, not brilliant. Yes, definately overhyped. I thought Ledger did some great work as the Joker, but surprisingly was left off screen too often. I never felt the intensity between him and Batman reached full potential, and the psychological games got lost a bit in the desire to please the blockbuster crowd with bigger and better explosions. The realism of the drama was at odds with some of the gimmicks (sonar monitoring, anyone?) and whilst techie types and kids might drool, that kind of thing leaves me a touch cold. I prefer a more visceral, personalised kind of action. Eg. the stunt where Rachel slides off the roof. That's more exciting to me than Batman flying around the sky on a cable like a, well, bat! The combat was better shot than in BEGINS, but amazingly unimaginative in its choreography. Some of the violence and threat was too strong for a 12 rating (in the UK, natch) - that bit with the pencil got quite a few gasps in my audience. Bale was alright as Batman, same as before, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine add a little old school charm. I thought Maggie was an improvement over Katie Holmes (and, despite some of the negative comment, quite hot). I like the character of Harvey Dent, not so sure about Two-Face though I didn't buy the burnt-face equals psycho act. He lets the Joker go, but intends on killing Gordon's child? Bollocks. That kind of thing lets the otherwise interesting story down for me. In fact, the whole ending was a disappointment. After two plus hrs I was waiting for a momentous confrontation between the Joker and Batman... and it just didn't happen. I felt a bit like: is that it? He just hangs there? Despite my grumbles I was mostly entertained, but I just had to put some cap on the overpraise. I've heard the term "masterpiece" bandied about(!) Must mention the dreadful soundtrack - everything was LOUD except the dialogue, a lot of which I couldn't hear. Gary Oldman could've been reciting his shopping list for all I knew.

*Also posted in the Reviews thread

Agreed the sonar concept was OTT, the concept was strong but I disliked the overuse of it but as I said previously it was very much a niggle.

Otherwise did you see the same film as everyone else? Are you sure you didn't see Sex in the City? . It's surprising how different your take is than everyone else. You seem to dislike some of the many highlights of The Dark Knight.

I did think it was borderline 15 but then again Casino Royale was 12A too. What can you day, all kids are tough these days . I definitely agree Maggie was better than Katie Holmes. Holmes whether she likes it or not is a face, Maggie thankfully isn't. Her stature suited the role better too.

Markgway wrote:I didn't buy the burnt-face equals psycho act. He lets the Joker go, but intends on killing Gordon's child? Bollocks.

It makes perfect sense. He's supremely pissed off at Gordon for Gordon not getting to Rachel in time. Even before his face gets half burnt off he's turning bad, he's starting to think it's maybe better to use violence after all.

It sounds like you didn't really like it at all. What's your favourite superhero film?

Obviously it's not a masterpiece (what a dumb statement) but it is very well made, acted and the script is super strong (especially for a superhero film).

bradavon wrote:Otherwise did you see the same film as everyone else?

Why? Because I didn't worship it? I just pointed out elements I wasn't happy with, as well as things I did like. I gave it a 3.75 score, and that's good. You can't say I didn't like it, just because everyone else rated it higher. I don't do hype.

Are you sure you didn't see Sex in the City? .

If I'd sat thru that I'd have washed my eyeballs in bleach. Four haggered, sexist slappers talking dirty for 2.5 hrs? No, thanks!

You seem to dislike some of the many highlights of The Dark Knight.

Such as...? What did I not like that you thought were highlights?

I did think it was borderline 15 but then again Casino Royale was 12A too. What can you day, all kids are tough these days .

Too tough, but immature. It's not about whether kids can stomach violence, but whether they should be able to?

I definitely agree Maggie was better than Katie Holmes. Holmes whether she likes it or not is a face, Maggie thankfully isn't. Her stature suited the role better too.

I did feel bad for her character when she was killed - something I actually didn't see coming. Why is it that Harvey goes bananas having known her a few months, yet Batman who's known her all his life lets her killer stay alive. That's not dignified, it's damn well self-righteous. America executes criminals all the time, is anyone gonna argue that the Joker should live because it's the law?

It makes perfect sense. He's supremely pissed off at Gordon for Gordon not getting to Rachel in time. Even before his face gets half burnt off he's turning bad, he's starting to think it's maybe better to use violence after all.

He's not turning bad before the accident, not at all. He does what any decent person would do when a loved one is threatened by a psycho wearing make-up. His turn to the dark side doesn't ring true. If it had been the joker and the gangsters he went all vigilante on, that I would've accepted. But to have this guy go from white knight to child killer in the space of a few hours is ludicrous the more I think about it. Gordon did make a mistake, but killing his kid for it? Nah.

What's your favourite superhero film?

Maybe The Rocketeer? I can't thing of anything it gets wrong in terms of that character or anything I would do differently. It's also totally unpretentious.

Might as well post my 'review' here, in order to easily find it back plus move the discussion here, instead of having it spread over 2 threads...

The Dark Knight: 9/10

Wow... just a great movie.
First of all, I have to say my doubts about Heath Ledger as the joker were proven wrong.
When he was announced as the joker, I thought he wasnt a good choice, and wouldnt be able to handle the role. When the first pics came out with the lousy 'make-up', I felt it was untrue to the comicbook character. When the first reviews of this movie came out, and everyone was raving about his performance, I thought people were being kind (or hypocrites) cause the fella is dead now (kinda like how people say Fu Sheng was great, while obviously he's crap).

I was wrong. Heath Ledger is outstanding in this movie. Seeing him as the Joker makes you wonder how we ever coped with all those other portrayels of The Joker.

It's not just Heath Ledger who's outstanding: the whole cast, no exceptions, just shine. Gary Oldman as Gordon, Bale is great as Wayne (as Batman; meh...), Eckhart is outstanding as Dent, Gyllenhaal, Freeman, Caine, etc etc... all excellent.

The movie is long, but is the ultimate showcase for how huge a villain the Joker really is, creating chaos and fear in a city hoping for better times.

The movie changes the origin story of Two-face, but it works all the better this way.

There are a few small niggles though:
- The action-scenes, especially the hand-to-hand combat, isnt good. It's usually to dark and unclear what's going on, with Batman kinda moving like a stiff. I know Batman isnt supposed to be a martial arts movie, but Batman IS supposed to be a great martial artist, and the way the action scenes here were shot, it just doesnt show.
- The way the movie raises the tension in the 'scary' moments of the movies, is by using a very annoying soundeffect. Yes, it WORKS, but it's a bit of a cheap and easy method, which is a bit OTT. It kinda took me out of the movie.
- Although the Joker gives 2-3 origin stories, we never get to hear the real one. It might not be overly important, but ofcourse it does make you wonder if they had a scene shot (or planned) where we would get an explanation.

Anyway, 9/10. Just a very realistic mature movie which is both true to the comics as well as original in how it delivers that story.
Bring on Batman 3.

bradavon wrote:

Markgway wrote:I didn't buy the burnt-face equals psycho act. He lets the Joker go, but intends on killing Gordon's child? Bollocks.

It makes perfect sense. He's supremely pissed off at Gordon for Gordon not getting to Rachel in time. Even before his face gets half burnt off he's turning bad, he's starting to think it's maybe better to use violence after all.

Wrong!
He's angry at Gordon for not taking Harvey's warnings serious that he has corrupt cops on his team, and those corrupt cops are later responsible for kidnapping Rachel and Harvey, thus causing her death. He blames Gordon for it.

It sounds like you didn't really like it at all. What's your favourite superhero film?

Obviously it's not a masterpiece (what a dumb statement) but it is very well made, acted and the script is super strong (especially for a superhero film).

So youre dictating now what people are allowed to call a masterpiece or not!? The Godfather is widely labeled a masterpiece. Why is this movie not allowed that same respect in your book!?

gasteropod wrote:It's like stringed instruments in minor key being taken up higher and higher, I think it happened when the Joker was speaking about how he got his scars at one point. I found it effective.

I don't recall disliking any of the music, so I guess I must've liked it.

It's not really music, just a tone that gets louder and louder and higher and higher.

Yi-Long wrote:It's not really music, just a tone that gets louder and louder and higher and higher.

I'm guessing you're talking about the scene on the ship? That's the only time I remember the music being intrusive.

Markgway wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:It's not really music, just a tone that gets louder and louder and higher and higher.

I'm guessing you're talking about the scene on the ship? That's the only time I remember the music being intrusive.

I think they used 'the tone' about 2-3, maybe even 4 times.
I guess when you dont notice it, like some here havent, that it also doesnt 'bother' you. I noticed it and when they did it again, it bothered me and felt it was a cheap and easy trick to raise the tension. Like I said, it WORKED, but because it also BOTHERED me at the same time, it kinda took me outta the movie...

Haha, this has just cropped up taken in a bar last week, who thinks I should be the next Batman? A Batman who wears a paisley neckscarf and is anorexic-looking

Not until you get a fuckin' haircut. 8)

Markgway wrote:Why? Because I didn't worship it? I just pointed out elements I wasn't happy with, as well as things I did like.

Spot the smiley Mr. Gway, spot the smiley.

Markgway wrote:Such as...? What did I not like that you thought were highlights?

Everything you wrote that you disliked , pretty much.

Markgway wrote:Too tough, but immature. It's not about whether kids can stomach violence, but whether they should be able to?

Spot the smiley Mr. Gway, spot the smiley.

Markgway wrote:Why is it that Harvey goes bananas having known her a few months, yet Batman who's known her all his life lets her killer stay alive.

Did it say how long Harvey has known Rachel? Batman is being all morally righteous. Why else would he allow himself to be the villain?

Markgway wrote:He's not turning bad before the accident, not at all.

He is. There's that section when he ties up that guy to a chair and Batman has to stop him.

Markgway wrote:But to have this guy go from white knight to child killer in the space of a few hours is ludicrous the more I think about it.

It's a movie. It's not played out in real-time .

Markgway wrote:Maybe The Rocketeer?

Of all the superhero films "that's" your favourite. It's so average.

As well as the over-use of CGI Sonar, Mark Kermode reminded me of one other niggle. The boat section was unnecessary and felt forced, it was one moral dilemma too many.

It's completely illogical too. Out of the millions of people in Gotham City, they due to save the criminals first. Again it's a niggle though, in otherwise fantastic film.

it's overrated,very good but not great imo.