Let me start this by saying:
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, STOP READING THIS AND GO WATCH IT.
There will be spoilers. How many and how in depth, I don't know. I haven't written it yet. But, to be on the safe side, you should go back to your home page and do something else until you have seen the awesomeness that is this movie. Or read the Flixster review (that my lazy behind will do right after this) which will be shorter (probably by a lot) and definitely not as in depth.
That being said, Dark Knight. Where to begin with this movie?
For some of the supporting roles, we have the great Morgan Freeman as Lucius, the behind-the-scenes partner to Batman and all around genius inventor for all of the hero's very cool gadgets. Michael Caine returns as Alfred Pennyworth, who is a must-have character in any self-respecting Batman movie. Who else would talk back to Bruce and tell him what no one else will? And, although not the final supporting role by far, it's the only other one I feel compelled to mention: Lt. James Gordon, played by Gary Oldman. This is another role I feel was perfectly cast. Gordon is such an important character in the series,the role has to have a good actor or else parts of the story would fall flat.
Heath Ledger does an amazing job as The Joker. There are times, in various parts, where he flat out creeped me out. And that laugh! He deserves an Oscar for that performance, and seriously, talk about going out with a bang. I doubt there could've been a better one to be his last. I do know there's an unfinished movie starring him floating around, but even if they keep him in it, the role has to be finished by someone else. (BTW, anyone know the story on this? I've heard that they're still undecided and I've also heard they've got three different actors finishing his role off).
Maggie Gyllenhaal also gives a star performance. I'm slightly sad that she didn't play Rachel in the first movie instead of Katie Holmes. I think she pulled off strong-minded Rachel Dawes beautifully. Down to being torn between two good men. Which leads us to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. He was all right. I didn't hate him, not at all, but next to Maggie, Heath and, of course, the wonderful and drop-dead gorgeous Christian Bale, he paled. He just wasn't on the same level, in my book.
Christian Bale, well, come on. Do you really doubt his abilities in this movie? He essentially plays three characters in the Batman movies. He plays the Bruce Wayne the public sees, rich playboy who seems to constantly flaunt his money; Batman, pursuer of justice who does what's needed of him, no matter the sacrifice; and the real Bruce Wayne, stuck between the other two persona, with strong ideals and even stronger loyalties. You have to give an actor credit to be able to portray all three sides of one man so so so well.
Some of the stunts pulled, like the one with the truck flipping over, were pretty downright cool. The movie is action-packed without going overboard and without clogging the story. Moreover, and more importantly, the storyline isn't rushed to fit in all that was told in this movie and it, at least in my opinion, also doesn't drag down with unnecessary details. A lot of times, that's what happens, and it gets annoying.
Now, don't get me wrong. This movie is great, but not perfect. First off, rather than acid being the cause of Two-Face's deformity, it's fire instead. Which, considering how they changed that bit to fit the story is all fine and dandy, except as a movie-makeup obsessed friend of mine pointed out, Harvey as Two-Face could've been done better.
Worst of all: they killed him! Two-Face, one of Batman's biggest (and often scariest) enemies, and he dies during Joker's movie. >_< Couldn't he at least have gotten a second go at it, if not in his own movie someone else's, before he was offed?
Second, wasn't Crane defeated in the first movie somehow? 'Cause he's in this movie towards the beginning. Granted, it's for two seconds, but still. That threw me.
And lastly, one thing that I've heard from a few people, they were upset that in the part with Gordon's family in the end, the emphasis is on the son rather than the daughter who, assuming they stay true to the story, later becomes Batgirl. This is my take on why that probably was.
In the first movie, Gordon's son is shown as a supporter of Batman from the get-go. So, it makes sense to keep him in the story rather than suddenly making him unimportant. Second, it makes sense to not focus on Gordon's daughter Barbara (had to specify since his wife's name is Barbara, as well) so they're not stuck with an actress they'd rather not use in the later movies.
For instance, take the HP movies. Rumor has it that the girl who plays Ginny Weasley was picked partially because they never expected Ginny to become anything more than a side character; Ron's little sister. When in fact, she turns out to be Harry's love interest at the end. Frankly, the girl's average looking and not all that good of an actress, but they're kinda stuck with her, because she's the face you associate with Ginny now.
With the Batman movies, it's good to think ahead. You never know if people are going to suddenly get sick of any and all superhero movies, so they may never get that far along in the series simply because the movies won't make money. It's doubtful, it is Batman after all, but still. Furthermore, it's not like they've announced how far into the story they're going to go. Maybe they'll stop with Robin.
Still, even if they do go that far along, the character of Barbara/Batgirl will be more flexible and easier to play with if there's not a preconceived character to follow from a previous movie. They'll have a wider option of actresses to pick as opposed to having to stick with the previous one or one who looks like the previous one. Basically, should the time come, they've a clean-slate to work with. After all, the only thing you see of Gordon's daughter in the entire movie is light brown hair, which can easily lighten (if they end up going with a blond Batgirl a la Alicia Silverstone *gag*) or darken (to a reddish-auburn, as most Batgirls are depicted as having).
Anything else I can think of is so minor, it isn't worth mentioning or even remembering. All in all, this movie does a great job of picking up where Batman Begins started and continuing the Batman story. It's worth watching in theaters. I think I may go back to watch it in IMAX, actuallly. wink
SA
UPDATE: A friend just informed me that Christian Bale has been quoted saying he wouldn't want to be a part of the franchise should Robin be brought into it. That would be such a bummer! How can you have Batman without eventually having Robin, too?!
Though we both think (and hope) that Two-Face isn't actually dead, thus for making a possible return in a later movie. I would forgive the Robin thing, then.
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, STOP READING THIS AND GO WATCH IT.
There will be spoilers. How many and how in depth, I don't know. I haven't written it yet. But, to be on the safe side, you should go back to your home page and do something else until you have seen the awesomeness that is this movie. Or read the Flixster review (that my lazy behind will do right after this) which will be shorter (probably by a lot) and definitely not as in depth.
That being said, Dark Knight. Where to begin with this movie?
For some of the supporting roles, we have the great Morgan Freeman as Lucius, the behind-the-scenes partner to Batman and all around genius inventor for all of the hero's very cool gadgets. Michael Caine returns as Alfred Pennyworth, who is a must-have character in any self-respecting Batman movie. Who else would talk back to Bruce and tell him what no one else will? And, although not the final supporting role by far, it's the only other one I feel compelled to mention: Lt. James Gordon, played by Gary Oldman. This is another role I feel was perfectly cast. Gordon is such an important character in the series,the role has to have a good actor or else parts of the story would fall flat.
Heath Ledger does an amazing job as The Joker. There are times, in various parts, where he flat out creeped me out. And that laugh! He deserves an Oscar for that performance, and seriously, talk about going out with a bang. I doubt there could've been a better one to be his last. I do know there's an unfinished movie starring him floating around, but even if they keep him in it, the role has to be finished by someone else. (BTW, anyone know the story on this? I've heard that they're still undecided and I've also heard they've got three different actors finishing his role off).
Maggie Gyllenhaal also gives a star performance. I'm slightly sad that she didn't play Rachel in the first movie instead of Katie Holmes. I think she pulled off strong-minded Rachel Dawes beautifully. Down to being torn between two good men. Which leads us to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. He was all right. I didn't hate him, not at all, but next to Maggie, Heath and, of course, the wonderful and drop-dead gorgeous Christian Bale, he paled. He just wasn't on the same level, in my book.
Christian Bale, well, come on. Do you really doubt his abilities in this movie? He essentially plays three characters in the Batman movies. He plays the Bruce Wayne the public sees, rich playboy who seems to constantly flaunt his money; Batman, pursuer of justice who does what's needed of him, no matter the sacrifice; and the real Bruce Wayne, stuck between the other two persona, with strong ideals and even stronger loyalties. You have to give an actor credit to be able to portray all three sides of one man so so so well.
Some of the stunts pulled, like the one with the truck flipping over, were pretty downright cool. The movie is action-packed without going overboard and without clogging the story. Moreover, and more importantly, the storyline isn't rushed to fit in all that was told in this movie and it, at least in my opinion, also doesn't drag down with unnecessary details. A lot of times, that's what happens, and it gets annoying.
Now, don't get me wrong. This movie is great, but not perfect. First off, rather than acid being the cause of Two-Face's deformity, it's fire instead. Which, considering how they changed that bit to fit the story is all fine and dandy, except as a movie-makeup obsessed friend of mine pointed out, Harvey as Two-Face could've been done better.
Worst of all: they killed him! Two-Face, one of Batman's biggest (and often scariest) enemies, and he dies during Joker's movie. >_< Couldn't he at least have gotten a second go at it, if not in his own movie someone else's, before he was offed?
Second, wasn't Crane defeated in the first movie somehow? 'Cause he's in this movie towards the beginning. Granted, it's for two seconds, but still. That threw me.
And lastly, one thing that I've heard from a few people, they were upset that in the part with Gordon's family in the end, the emphasis is on the son rather than the daughter who, assuming they stay true to the story, later becomes Batgirl. This is my take on why that probably was.
In the first movie, Gordon's son is shown as a supporter of Batman from the get-go. So, it makes sense to keep him in the story rather than suddenly making him unimportant. Second, it makes sense to not focus on Gordon's daughter Barbara (had to specify since his wife's name is Barbara, as well) so they're not stuck with an actress they'd rather not use in the later movies.
For instance, take the HP movies. Rumor has it that the girl who plays Ginny Weasley was picked partially because they never expected Ginny to become anything more than a side character; Ron's little sister. When in fact, she turns out to be Harry's love interest at the end. Frankly, the girl's average looking and not all that good of an actress, but they're kinda stuck with her, because she's the face you associate with Ginny now.
With the Batman movies, it's good to think ahead. You never know if people are going to suddenly get sick of any and all superhero movies, so they may never get that far along in the series simply because the movies won't make money. It's doubtful, it is Batman after all, but still. Furthermore, it's not like they've announced how far into the story they're going to go. Maybe they'll stop with Robin.
Still, even if they do go that far along, the character of Barbara/Batgirl will be more flexible and easier to play with if there's not a preconceived character to follow from a previous movie. They'll have a wider option of actresses to pick as opposed to having to stick with the previous one or one who looks like the previous one. Basically, should the time come, they've a clean-slate to work with. After all, the only thing you see of Gordon's daughter in the entire movie is light brown hair, which can easily lighten (if they end up going with a blond Batgirl a la Alicia Silverstone *gag*) or darken (to a reddish-auburn, as most Batgirls are depicted as having).
Anything else I can think of is so minor, it isn't worth mentioning or even remembering. All in all, this movie does a great job of picking up where Batman Begins started and continuing the Batman story. It's worth watching in theaters. I think I may go back to watch it in IMAX, actuallly. wink
SA
UPDATE: A friend just informed me that Christian Bale has been quoted saying he wouldn't want to be a part of the franchise should Robin be brought into it. That would be such a bummer! How can you have Batman without eventually having Robin, too?!
Though we both think (and hope) that Two-Face isn't actually dead, thus for making a possible return in a later movie. I would forgive the Robin thing, then.
