Ravenous Beauty: A Writer's Workshop

Discuss.

Well, RT seems to be bursting with love for it, but a lot of theaters in my area are already sold out until Sunday.

I'll try to see it when the mayhem calms.

Want to place bets on how many of the opening night crowd will show up wearing Joker/Heath Ledger gear?

I saw it last night. Phenomenal.

Ledger's performance as the Joker is absolutely magnificent. Dark, maniacal, macabre. Whatever. He's chilling in certain scenes. Brings a horrifying smile across your face with some of his sinister monologues... you might even feel dirty for laughing about it after. It's a legendary performance for sure. It's just really sad to acknowledge the fact he won't ever be able to up his performance... that's his last one. Amazing as it is, it's sad to know he's gone.

The film, though, is definitely a contender for 'masterpiece.' Best comic book film is still undermining its quality a bit, because honestly most comic book movies are fun distractions, but this one has just as much to say as some of the great drama pieces out there. Watching the descent of Harvey Dent, for instance, is more like watching a modern take on Greek tragedy than anything else. The influence of Mann's Heat, another awesome epic crime movie, is also pretty obvious.

The wicked action scenes, including an amazing chase, the wicked aerial shot of the city, the performances by everyone including Bale, Ledger, Eckhart, Caine, Gyllenhaal... everything is just fantastic.

I'm seeing it again. Hopefully Tuesday. It can't come soon enough.

Fear not, spoiler free:

OK, I got a night away to take it in.

Sheeps, you're right about the whole Harvey Dent Greek tragedy bit. I've liked Aaron Eckhart since "In the Company of Men"--a movie that is still in my top five--forgave him when he went astray with a few half-stocked blockbusters, and is pleased with his return to the likes of "Thank You For Smoking" and bona fide blockbusters like "The Dark Knight."

His story was a great complement to the Joker's. I know the idea of Ledger receiving a posthumous award for his performance triggers an eyeball rolling response, but it is actually that good (and when it comes to the big awards, the posthumous slip doesn't happen that often). Plus the situations the Joker comes up with are akin to the moral issues/situations raised in "Saw." Breathe--I mean this in the good way (I only saw the first "Saw"; thought it was all right).

I'm glad Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes as the movie-exclusive Rachel Dawes. She was the weakest part of the first flick (that and who really wanted to see Liam Neeson in another mentor role).

This could just be me, but I'm not really into this era of 2 and a 1/2 hour action movies. Though 2 and a 1/2 hours felt long, a lot of the stories were cut short, leaving "The Dark Knight" feeling a bit rushed and a bit long at the same time. I think they could have actually gone Kill Bill style and released two (simultaneously shorter, sleeker, yet expanded) movies a year apart. I appreciated the spin on the Two-Face storyline and think that if they had done two parts, the ascension of Two-Face could have been started at the end of the first and let loose in the second. Regardless, that's not what was made.

Though the movie is good and dark--it really nails the psychological violence pioneered by old school horror movies, understanding that the scariest image is in your mind--it relies on that complicated villain technique far too often. Though you initially accept the twists, upon further thought you realize that a lot of the plot turns don't make much sense (not a spoiler, but you need to see it to understand: especially the scapegoat technique at the end of the movie--why was it necessary for blame to fall specifically anywhere?).

I don't know if it tops "Iron Man" for me (and I didn't care for him in the comic books; I was a Batman guy), but I've already admitted my bias against the super-long action movie (Iron Man clocked in at a little over two hours--it still felt a little long).

P.S. I still hate the Batman voice. Chug some more Castrol GTX, Wayne.

It blows Iron Man away to me. Iron Man is still a little cheesy... the transformation of Tony Stark from womanizing weapons dealing billionaire to humanitarian who wants to faithfully love his secretary and, oh becomes a superhero fighting bad guys... well, it was done alright. But in all, it just doesn't have much to say other than that. Dark Knight doesn't just have a larger scope, it's themes dig dipper and hit harder than any other comic book movie combined.

I didn't mind the length at all. It's a preference thing, definitely. I agree about Katie Holmes. She was weak in the first. Maggie did well in this one. I'd say the weakest part of Begins, though, was the added in humor lines - "I gotta get me one of those" "At least tell me what it looks like... nevermind" "Nice coat." Pretty much all cringe-worthy if you watch the movie more than once.

There are spoilers beyond this point:

I'm also not sure I agree that the end doesn't make sense. The city needs hope, and Harvey Dent was that hope. If the city knows the white knight was corrupted, then they lose that. Batman was never on that same level. The Joker won that part of his plan. And, I'm sure Gordon's still bearing guilt for the fact he brought some of this onto Dent in the first place by trusting his men.

As for the voice, I minded it when he was talking, alone, to people who knew he was Bruce. Like Lucius Fox and Rachel. I mean, he does the growl to conceal his identity... so it's not necessary when alone. I'm sure he does it to not break the Batman character when in the suit, but when he's having a philosophical conversation with someone in that voice, it is a bit much.

With action movies, I just want stuff to blow up. I'm real simple like that, though I'm glad the one liners are gone too.

<b>SPOILERS

As for the ending: I agree that the blame needed to be taken off Harvey Dent, but that doesn't mean it needed to fall on Batman. What's the point of that? Just let it fall into anonymity. Random thug #359257 did it--captured Gordon's family, shot the peeps along the way--all of it.

END SPOILERS</b>

Sardonic Artery wrote:With action movies, I just want stuff to blow up. I'm real simple like that, though I'm glad the one liners are gone too.

<b>SPOILERS

As for the ending: I agree that the blame needed to be taken off Harvey Dent, but that doesn't mean it needed to fall on Batman. What's the point of that? Just let it fall into anonymity. Random thug #359257 did it--captured Gordon's family, shot the peeps along the way--all of it.

END SPOILERS</b>

True enough, but they might be considering it's just easy enough to blame him for it. After all, Batman's image was very... well, strange in this movie. There were copycats using guns to try to kill criminals, a hostage was dressed like him and hung in the middle of the town by the Joker... Batman himself was blamed for murder because he refused to turn in his mask. I think the people would have blamed him anyway, for a lot of things, you know?

You're right that it's a little convoluted and "iffy", but I don't think it takes that much away from the film as a whole, anyway. I'm sure it's done as setup for another film, if they choose to do another one.
End Spoilers

How do you guys feel about the Joker returning, by the way? Adamantly against him being recast in a third film because it would be a disservice to Heath's memory? Do you think they should settle for another villain, and hope somehow they can possibly live up to TDK's standard?

Personally, I'm hoping they have some useful leftover footage of Heath as the Joker to use for some scenes in the third, if they do one. Other than that, I guess I'd say leave the Joker out of it... the Joker we want to see more of is Heath's, and it's sad he can't reprise the role.

All right, I'll give on Gotham's hatred of Batman working. I really did like the Batman impersonator angle going beyond just a humorous aspect.

In answer to your question: I don't know, there are some good actors out there. Think about how many people were against replacing good ol' Jack Nicholson. Sure, he's not dead, but what does honoring a memory really mean anyway?

Truthfully, I think there are enough villains left to explore other territory. Scarecrow didn't get much play in this one and it still worked. Pass the Joker off with a one-liner and have that be that.

Yeah it's true, Batman has one of the best rogue gallerys of any hero... Scarecrow, Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, Zsasz, Bane, Clayface, Ra's Al Ghul, Harley Quinn, mob bosses (Maroni, Thorne, Falcone), Black Mask, Man-Bat, Hush, Killer Croc, Mad Hatter...

I'm not sure any of those could really be more interesting than Joker. Mr. Freeze would be quite cool to see done well. Bane or Cat-Woman, too... they could be done well if the actual plot of the film is complex and entertaining enough. Of course, whoever they choose, they'll have to do realistically if they want to keep the same vibe from the others.

Bingo. There was some thread on the Velvet about the Penguin being a great political figure, rousing the city against Batman. That would make him the next movie's minor villain (like Two-Face in this one). I think Freeze, Bane or Clayface would be the best choice for the major villain.

I think the Riddler is tough to do well. I'd also rather skip Cat Woman. I think that might bring too much cheese.

Inevitably, how do you top the Joker? He's one of the best villains, period. I always liked that he kept going after Batman because he could never make him smile.

I know, hah. It's so hard to conceive of something better than TDK... so hard to see how they could possible top it, isn't it?

Personally I would love to see Mr. Freeze done correctly. It's an opportunity for some stunning cinematography... a thin pale man in a chamber of ice, wearing that suit to stay alive and lots of blue in contrast to the orange, yellows, gold and black of the other Batman films thus far. It would just look so very pretty.

I'm going to see TDK tomorrow again. Checking right now to see if there's any IMAX theaters around here that I don't know about yet.

I'm not even going to bother: SPOILERS galore!

I tried to see it at the IMAX last night. It's still sold out. The flick has been #1 for four weeks now.

The second time around definitely provides a strong level of appreciation for the minor points. That crooked cop is everywhere she needs to not be! You would have thought Gordon would have sussed it out. The plot flaws get bigger (those point that depend on the character doing the exact wrong thing at the exact right time), but it's a great flick for multiple viewings. At this point I'll say that my favorite part is the conversation between the Joker and Two-Face in the hospital. Call me crazy, I always like a good speech in an action flick.

Post-discussion with the wife also made me realize my disturbing knowledge of the Batman franchise. Pop culture sticks a little too well...

OK, I have decided what I think today (yay me): I think "Iron Man" is a better superhero movie, but that "The Dark Knight" is a better movie, period.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but all in all, Batman is not much of a superhero anyway. He doesn't have magical powers like most other comic book characters, and his only real super attributes would be his inhuman determination, incredible detective work and mastery of fighting, really. Iron Man isn't all that super either, though, because all of his powers really come from the suit and his own intellect. I might have just derailed my own point here.

Regardless, it makes sense though that Iron Man abides by the groundrules set out in previous comic book movies and does what they should do very well: it's entertaining and light, with a noble message ingrained in it along with good acting, respectable visuals and action. The Dark Knight does not adhere to those constraints and in fact almost reinvents the genre, pulling elements of crime drama and noir into the picture. Most times it seemed much more like a mixmash of L.A. Confidential and Heat than The Incredible Hulk or Iron Man or Spider-Man. It's a lot darker and more mature, and yeah, definitely a better movie in comparison.

I see exactly what you mean.