^if this movie disappointed you then im guessing your gonna be disappointed by alot of movies you see. Some of the scenes(semi truck chase) and heath ledgers performance is some of the best things put to film in history imo. explain alittle why you were disappointed because i couldnt find anything that disappointed me other then it ended.lol

 

I'm rarely disappointed with movies, because I don't like to waste my time (on films anyway - I have better ways to pass meaningless time - like lying on my bed or in the bath for hours dreaming!!) and pretty carefully research what I choose to watch.

 

That said, this film WAS brilliant. Having thought about it more, I'd give it 9/10 entertainment value for a film at the cinema, but still only 7/10 as a Batman flick. I expect to be shouted down on this thread, as most people clearly adore it here, and think it's flawless. I'm glad for you all, and 'enjoy it' I say, but I was still disappointed, and as you've been kind enough to ask why, I'll explain just a little.

 

- Gotham didn't feel like Gotham and Batman didn't feel like Batman.

 

I've grown up on Batman since a kid, and for Batman to work as it can we need Gotham to feel like Gotham, and there was little sense of that here, it just felt like Batman in any large industrial/economic US city. There was no Batcave, no Wayne mansion (alright, we all know why) but equally no sense of the macabre, gothic metropolis that is essential for a Batman film. Burton may (arguably) have overdone it, but in this one it was non-existent.

 

Likewise, Batman didn't come across as a remarkable man with a remarkable (though twisted) view of life, who happens to have possessed extraordinary equipment to help him. He came across as a rather bland no-nothing with not much more than riches, Kevlar armour and some remarkable, though highly unlikely (yes by reducing everything to the mundane city-life level they made the fantasy hard to swallow), capes to use every once in a while. They neutered Batman in this one.

 

- The direction of the action sequences was pretty bad. The truck scene was cool, especially when it flipped, but there are some terrible cuts there. The scene when all the hostages are dressed up like the goons - likewise. Forgivable when the film's so long? Yep. Does it justify people talking about this as the best film ever made (or even the best action film ever made)? No way.

 

- Maggie was appalling, and there was no emotional sense at all between her and Bale. There needed to be something.

 

- Harvey Dent's story arc was completed well, but Two-Faces was unnecessary, rushed, and completely under-developed. He should have been the (or 'a') baddie for Batman 3. In fact the whole last quarter of the film was just that (nice as it is to see a long film) unnecessary, rushed, and completely under-developed.

 

Well, that's my critical review, as far as I've gone. I could say more! Please do remember that I've rated this very highly indeed as a piece of entertainment in itself, and just disappointing to me as a Batman flick (with some directorial mis-directions by the powerhouse of story that is Chris Nolan).

 

Anyway, enjoy everyone, and it seems you all are :)

I do agree with you on Maggie and Two Face. I've never been a fan of her acting, but I think she wanted her character to seem strong and tough because she lives in a dangerous city, but it just came across as annoying.

And Two Face could have been saved for the third Batman movie, if there is one.

I agree with you 100%

 

Though it's still the best batman movie out of the lot of them

I kinda forgot it was set in gotham, I kept thinking it was in chicago or new york

and batman kinda took a backseat in this one in my opinion.

 

it was mostly about the joker.

which I can't complain about because Ledger was phenomenal!

gotham was suppose to be like a real city, not the fantasy land that burton created, if your basing your opinion on what gotham is suppose to be like off of burtons movies thats not the way it was orginally intended. Gotham was intended to be a real life metropolitan city, like chicago.

it was especially cool seeing the film at navy pier when the scene with the boats leaving the pier was filmed at navy pier :P Chicago makes a great Gotham :P

Batman ‘too violent’ for children

 

The Dark Knight has sparked record complaints

 

The violent scenes in the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight, have prompted a record number of objections about its classification with a 12A certificate.

 

In just over a week since the film, starring the late Heath Ledger as the Joker, was released in this country, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has received 70 complaints about the certification. There were 110 complaints about the 12A certificate for the 2006 James Bond film Casino Royale, but these were received over several weeks.

 

Parents have complained of having to shield their children’s eyes from scenes such as a man’s eye being jabbed with a pencil and the Joker describing how he enjoys killing people with a knife because they take longer to die.

 

This weekend Labour MP Keith Vaz, who is chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said he would be summoning the BBFC to its hearings on knife crime in October. “The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter,” said Vaz, who saw the film on Friday. “It should be a 15 classification.”

 

Critics have warned that the BBFC is becoming both too liberal and too willing to cave in to commercial pressure from Hollywood studios to maximise audience numbers. The board has admitted that its decision on The Dark Knight was “borderline 15” – meaning that its examiners nearly gave it a 15. The 12A means children of 12 can go unaccompanied.

 

Parents are allowed to take children younger than 12 with them to the Batman film, although they are advised not to. Children as young as nine have been seen watching it.

 

Among those to complain to the BBFC is Nicholas Henderson, a marketing manager from Surrey, who saw the film with three adult friends.

 

“It’s immoral and unethical. None of us could believe it was a 12A,” said Henderson, who has also written to Joshua Berger, head of the UK arm of Warner Bros, the distributors. “Berger should go before the home affairs select committee’s knife crime inquiry to explain himself.”

 

The Dark Knight is more lifelike and contains more violent scenes than previous Batman films, which have been closer to the original cartoon style. Many parents did not realise how different the new film, released at the start of the school summer holidays, is from the rest of the series.

 

The first appeared in 1989 and starred Michael Keaton and Kim Basinger. In addition to the eye scene (which does not show the moment of contact) and the Joker’s comments on knife killing, the same character is shown threatening to slit a victim’s mouth open.

 

The BBFC simply states on its main website classification that The Dark Knight “contains moderate violence and sustained threat”. Few people read the website and even fewer know of its page of “extended consumer advice for parents”.

 

The site summarises the film as “a super-hero movie” and acknowledges elsewhere that it “contains a good deal of violence, but not in detail”.

 

The BBFC has confirmed that Warner Bros asked for The Dark Knight to be classified as 12A and admitted that the board “comes under pressure to keep classifications low” so that as many people as possible can see films.

 

“The real problem is that in previous Batman films, Jack Nicholson’s Joker was jokier,” said John Whittingdale, Tory chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee.

 

“This ‘Joker’ is truly evil. Yet most parents and children would not know this beforehand. Also, nobody goes to the BBFC’s website for parental advice.”

 

The board says its director, David Cooke, did not see the film before it was classified, although he has watched it recently. It is understood he supported the 12A classification.

 

In Scandinavia and Ireland the film is a 15 and even in America, which is usually more liberal on film violence, the critic of The New Yorker magazine warned: “Do not, despite its PG13 [certificate], bring the children.”

 

BOND AMONG 12A SHOCKERS

 

— Casino Royale, the 2006 Bond film, was given a 12A even though the BBFC demanded cuts to a torture scene

 

— Angelina Jolie, star of Beowulf, expressed surprise at its 12A, saying the film “shocked me”

 

— Matt Damon urged parents not to take their children to see his 2002 hit The Bourne Identity, the first film given a 12A

 

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4449537.ece

I agree.

 

But I don't care.

I went and watched it again today for a second time :D

I went and watched it again today for a second time :D

 

Im gonna go see it for my fourth time next week.:dozey:

FOURTH?? fucking hell.

 

I've seen it twice and I thought I was a good fan!

:laugh3:

 

I'd go see it again but only for ledgers performance!

I'm seeing it for the second time (this time in IMAX) on Thursday! :dance:

FOURTH?? fucking hell.

 

I've seen it twice and I thought I was a good fan!

:laugh3:

 

I'd go see it again but only for ledgers performance!

 

:laugh3:

 

Yeah, it gets slightly boring during the slow parts, but as soon as the Joker starts his games it's all good.

I must say i was slightly disappointed......a lot of slow bits...at times i lost what the real meaning was...and the end sucked big time also!!

I must say i was slightly disappointed......a lot of slow bits...at times i lost what the real meaning was...and the end sucked big time also!!

 

:stunned:

 

 

 

 

Okay, okay, you're open to your own opinion, but...

 

 

 

 

:smash:

I must say i was slightly disappointed......a lot of slow bits...at times i lost what the real meaning was...and the end sucked big time also!!

 

 

:stunned:

 

 

 

 

:dead:

...and the end sucked big time also!!

 

wat

i think we all agree that anybody who didnt enjoy this movie needs to have their head examined...jk

Maggie G. is the worst actress and ruined this movie for me

 

Okay did anyone else think Maggie G. is the worst actress in the world. I really felt like she ruined the movie.

 

Two-Faced was great!

 

Overall it was good but the cuts were too fast and some of the character development (Joker) was missing. :cool:

Okay did anyone else think Maggie G. is the worst actress in the world. I really felt like she ruined the movie.

 

Two-Faced was great!

 

Overall it was good but the cuts were too fast and some of the character development (Joker) was missing. :cool:

 

the joker is not suppose to be developed, he is just suppose to be a force of chaos with no explaination to why he does what he does. I also noticed the quick cuts and alot of them happend when the joker was on screen, i think this was chris nolan trying to symbolize chaos, using quick cuts to keep the audience guessing. Its definitely a movie that is much better the second time. There are so many things to pick up on after the first overwhelming viewing.

Okay did anyone else think Maggie G. is the worst actress in the world. I really felt like she ruined the movie.

 

I agree with the Maggie thing.... I loved Katie in the first one, she really portrayed the character well.. i think she would've done well in this one

 

the joker is not suppose to be developed, he is just suppose to be a force of chaos with no explaination to why he does what he does. I also noticed the quick cuts and alot of them happend when the joker was on screen, i think this was chris nolan trying to symbolize chaos, using quick cuts to keep the audience guessing. Its definitely a movie that is much better the second time. There are so many things to pick up on after the first overwhelming viewing.

 

& i def agree with joker being an agent of chaos... and the watching it the 2nd time thing... i liked it even more the 2nd time, because everything just made so much more sense!

 

i still jumped out of my seat when the fake batman hit the window even though i was expecting it!

 

& i def agree with joker being an agent of chaos... and the watching it the 2nd time thing... i liked it even more the 2nd time, because everything just made so much more sense!

 

i still jumped out of my seat when the fake batman hit the window even though i was expecting it!

Same with me. Even the third time I jumped!

^^

No way! that scene is crazy

i must say, the backgound score has a huuugee affect on it too, that crazy buzzing sound that u hear whenever joker comes around always freaked me out... esp when he started his

'Do u wanna know how i got these scars?'

^^

No way! that scene is crazy

i must say, the backgound score has a huuugee affect on it too, that crazy buzzing sound that u hear whenever joker comes around always freaked me out... esp when he started his

'Do u wanna know how i got these scars?'

 

I read a inteview with nolan that said the composers used the sound of thousands of bees together and spliced it in with the score for the joker.

The reason there was no back story of the joker is because nolan and david s. Goyer (dark knight, Blade 2 & 3) wanted to portray the joker's character as absolute. and complete.

did anyone hear that johnny depp might play the riddler in the third one? :stunned: :dance: