Google-sovellukset
Päävalikko

Post a Comment On: Cinema Viewfinder

"Movie Review: The Dark Knight - Gotham Story: The Tragedy of Harvey Dent, or Part Two: The Actual Film Analysis"

6 Comments -

1 – 6 of 6
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed the film immensely and look forward to a second viewing in order to really absorb it all. There were a lot of angles to digest. Having just moved from Chicago, it was great to see the city play the role of Gotham so well. Great casting and the Joker...well...Heath brought the cold, sadistic, chaotic villain that many of us wanted to see from the comics. Finally a worthy depiction of Batman's arch nemesis.

July 22, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Blogger Tony Dayoub said...

I agree. I'm really curious to see how the trilogy concludes. Bearing in mind that they have thus far gone with realism in their choice of villains, any ideas on who you'd like to see as a villain in the next one?

July 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spent some time trying to recall and looking over the villain list. Tough one since, as you mentioned, they're staying grounded in reality. No clue though there is rumor of the Mad Hatter. It'd be easier to choose the villains that I'd prefer not to see, I think.

July 29, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walked out of this piece of crap.
The layer of BS floating throughout this movie was indigestible.
Apparently the Joker had a secret army of dudes that could sneak barrels of gasoline into any venue without detection. Buildings, hospitals, D.O.T. ferries, etc.
I also wasn't aware that you could surgically implant pounds of explosives inside a person and blow up an ENTIRE police station while conveniently only the Joker and Mr. China survive.
Did EVERYONE forget what a good movie is?
We need to make a whole new rating scale.
An old scale for REAL good movies.
Example: The Godfather would rate as a 99 out of 100.
The new scale would be handicapped for the new crap: The Dark Knight would rate 92 out of 100 new or 92 out of 200 on the old scale.
Then when a REAL good movie comes out like Iron Man you can say "Iron Man is an old scale 75."

August 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S.
The best part of the movie is when thew blow up Rachel.
Worst and ugliest casting of a love interest EVER. I thought it was impossible but worse than Kirsten Dunst in Spider Man.
Are you kidding me ?
"Renee Zellweger would have been better."
I can't believe I just said that.
LOL

August 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Blogger Tony Dayoub said...

John,

Regarding your first comment, I do have to agree that how good a movie is considered to be is relative these days. The seventies are, for me, the golden age of filmmaking, and "The Dark Knight" is definitely not in the same league as "The Godfather", even though they both have roots in pulp fiction.

But sometimes it's about timing, and in this case, I think "The Dark Knight", and more specifically the Joker and Two-Face, captured the mood of anarchy in the country right now. We have an administration that has gotten away with things that pale in comparison to what the Nixon administration has done. Fear has been used to control us since 9/11. These are themes that have snuck in on the Joker's coattails. Two-Face personifies the people that get caught in the crossfire between good and evil as a result of "random chance".

Put that together with the timing of Ledger's death, and you have a phenomenon. Like "Titanic", it's not that the movie is great. It just happens to be perfect for this time of our lives.

Interesting perspective you had, though. I'm glad that someone saw through the movie's mystique because it's not perfect. My main problems with it were not story, but that the action was staged so poorly. Once the chase/fight scenes start, you can barely tell what's going on, especially the climactic scene in that unfinished building at the end that you probably missed when you walked out.

That being said, I saw "Iron Man" again last night, and it is a much better movie all-around.

P.S. Regarding the love interest, Gyllenhall is definitely not glamorous, but I certainly buy her in the role of an assistant D.A. more than Katie Cruise. And I felt that onscreen she could hold her own with Bale, Eckhart, and Ledger, better than Mrs. Cruise could have.

August 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot