The review is not enough to praise this fantastic movie. It is simply the best, best American movie in recent times and It should have won the Oscar, instead of the silly Slumdog Millionaire.
This is a absolute treat! Joker, Batman, Two Face all grip you minute by minute - Err In that Order. Dialogues in particular are witty and awesome. Action at absolute best!
While I enojoyed the movie twice (watch it only on IMAX), and its review here (Heath playing it the Sid Vicious way was enws to me), it still ain't the Frank Miller vision from either his 'Dark Knight Return's' or 'DK strikes again'. I will wait for that, and did have my hopes high for the first one, based on the rumor that they were doing the Miller version. Boy were those hopes trashed bigtime. However, it set me up for this sequel, which, though miles ahead of its predecessor, definitely does NOT deserve its own series of novels or whatever. And its rated PG-13, and so bereft of gore, though wimpy kids may get nightmares because of the bad guys voices, make-up and body language used.
Agree with the note on Gyllenhall's playing Rachel the way she did, but the responsibility for that would be with the Nolans (screenplay guys). As for Maggie, pretty she ain't, but she sure is an accomplished actress who wasn't given her due in this. Also, thank heavens they did away with Holmes - that move sure rescued the character.
It also comes with its expositions that require a certain suspension of disbelief (if I mention those here, I will not be any different from those that have littered this board with spoilers), and that sure is disappointing to note in a work that is going to be acclaimed enough to have been respected more by its creators. So, no own series again, for this reason itself. Heath, having done similar work in Monster's ball and The brothers Grimm, has the final
RE:Excellent movie, but faithful to the graphic novel...not just yet!
by Vinay Iyer on Jul 29, 2008 02:34 PM
The Dark Knight has very little to do with Frank Miller's vision (though Begins was partly Miller's Year One). Batman has been known as the Dark Knight many many years before Miller arrived on the scene. This movie is more in the vein of The Long Halloween and some quintessential Joker stories which includes Killing Joke and his first two appearances. If someone went expecting TDKR, that's not going to happen, sorry. Besides if you ground TDKR in today's world, it would suck and if you stuck to the comic, it wouldn't be very relevant because people won't understand 80's American culture. Dark Knight Strikes Again is a very bad story.
RE:Excellent movie, but faithful to the graphic novel...not just yet!
by AS Beg on Aug 02, 2008 08:39 PM
Don't compare it with DC comics. By the way, It's a good thing, Katie Holmes was kicked out of the game. Now, please inform me where will I find IMAX in New Delhi??
I was one of the first guys to post comments about Dark Knight on this blog. I did not think the movie was good and accordingly had tried to explain some of my reasons. But from the criticism I faced soon after, and also from the comments posted on this blog by others, I realize I am part of a very very small minority.
I really wish Rediff did not have a space restriction over here, or else I could have tried to get deeper into this discussion and defend my stand. So here's another suggestion, meant for those of you who seriously wouldn't mind having a juicy debate about this:- Given below are 3 links that lead to some very relevant reasons why this movie, though entertaining in parts, is definitely NOT a good movie. Do go through them if you have the time ... it's all very interesting ... and you may also find yourself agreeing with much of it!
