Movie News

From David Moscato:

Best movie, not just comic book movie, in years! Should be up for Best Picture Oscar! The story is great. The acting of the main characters -- Bale, Ledger and Eckhart -- is fantastic. Ledger does deserve all the hype his performance has gotten, but so do Bale and Eckhart. The story is great. They keep to the spirit of the whole Batman mythos. Nolan has kept the series from getting really silly, like the previous series of movies. Nolan definitely deserves a Best Director nomination as well!

Sorry if my review is all over the place. I expected a lot of this movie after the last one was so good, but this one went above and beyond what I was expecting! My wife isn't a fan of the whole comic book genre. She went with my daughter and me to have a family outing. I looked at her several times during the movie as well as my 11-year-old daughter. They were both sitting up in their chairs within the first 30 minutes of the movie, and I lost count of how many times I saw them nearly jump out of their seats!

From Rose Van Dyle:

Agree with your article except the movie is way too long.

From 'Bama Bruce:

My first thought after seeing "The Dark Knight" was that it was 30 minutes too long. The second time I saw it, I thought it was almost perfect. The additional chaos caused by the Joker in the final 30 minutes of the movie was needed to prove that, even when the Joker is free and can escape punishment, he cannot help himself when he tortures the two ferries' passengers. He must create chaos at every given chance.

From Jon Haas, Eastern Kentucky:

As soon as I saw Harvey Dent was in "The Dark Knight," I knew they'd screw it up. Two-Face had no place in this movie. Nolan pulled a Venom with him. Two-Face is a villain that can probably carry a movie. Instead, he crapped up the last half hour by taking screen time away from the Joker.

Also, a destroyed Batmobile and a smaller Bat-vehicle have both already been done in the '90s Batman movies. Why does Batman always get his stuff wrecked eventually?

I can overlook the Batpod and the new Batsuit, but Two-Face ruined the movie for me. I can't believe they were that stupid.

From E.J. Darwin:

From the overly satiated: I admit that when I left the movie theater last night, I was smiling like a dumb fool. From the moment masked men began playing tag with greedy minds and itchy trigger fingers, all I could think was, "Yes ... yes, yes, yes! This is what it's all about." After all, this had always been what Batman was about.

Jack Nicholson's colorful, comical and goofy Joker evaporated, while Val Kilmer and George Clooney's superficial, broad, bleak and bland Batman portrayals simply dissolved. "The Dark Knight" blew my expectations away. So enthralling and compelling it was, while remaining, for the most part, scientifically realistic and morally driven; I had difficulty linking this film as an add-on to Nolan's first Batman film, "Batman Begins."

By this point I was shaking in my theater seat, fidgeting all over, and telling my father I could no longer watch; the movie was too good for me.

I couldn't be prouder to be a Batman fan than now. Only a fan such as myself would understand the mental afflictions these characters represent, and the mental inflictions they are to present. The Joker is a clown in the vaguest description; in actuality, he is a mass murdering sociopath who enjoys chaos and mayhem simply because he has the will to create it. He has always been this opposite, this mirror image to Batman. This role was played justly by the late Heath Ledger, whose portrayal of the Joker fit the patent.

"The Dark Knight" had action, drama, romance, comedy, cross-dressing and tragedy. Never did I feel the cold dread of guilt trickle down the theater aisles so violently as when I saw this film. I can only hope that the next film (there WILL be a next film), will strive to surpass the psychological dimension and overly stunning addition that was "The Dark Knight."

From Irma Garcia, Sherman, Texas:

I am not a superhero expert, but it was too fast for me, with too many characters at one time and confusing jumps from scene to scene. For all the high-tech equipment that Batman had, he still couldn't bring down the Joker! Not so real, all the banging in jail, no bloody noses? C'mon, make it more real. But, overall, my kids enjoyed it and that is what counts.

From Gus Rodriquez, Ormond Beach, Fla.:

I have had the pleasure of seeing all the Batman TV shows and movies starting in the '60s until today. By far the best Batman movie was "The Dark Knight," followed by the "Batman" movie with Jack Nicholson as the Joker. In any event, I believe Heath Ledger outshone Batman in the latest film. It was one of the best acting performances I have ever seen. Compares to Marlon Brando in "The Godfather."

From Lucy Cantu:

I think this last movie, "The Dark Knight," and the previous movie, "Batman Begins," are truly the greatest superhero movies ever made. The story lines and the people playing the villains were overwhelming! Nobody can fill Heath Ledger's shoes when it comes to playing the Joker. Cesar Romero had that laugh, and Heath Ledger held on to that. Jack Nicholson was good as the Joker in his own way, but Heath Ledger made the Joker come alive.

From Bryce Morrow:

I agree that this is one of the smartest sequels made. The question that lingers is if the Caped Crusader will actually "kill or harm" criminals in the next one? The Joker is the darkest villain yet, and if they get darker then Batman must get darker as well.

Read story | Send e-mail | Message board

From Ken McManaman:

What about River Phoenix? He was also working on a movie before he died, called "Dark Blood." He never completed it.

 

 

Read story | Send e-mail | Message board

From Brian Liscek:

I've been reading (OK, somewhat obsessively reading) the Comic-Con coverage on Coming Soon, Cinematical, Ain't It Cool, Deadline Hollywood Daily and MSN. Just want to say MSN's coverage has been great. I love the easy-to-navigate, comic-book-styled layout. And the videos, photos and writing have been very enjoyable.

Kim Morgan's wrap-up made the Romulan ale come shooting out of my nose a couple of times. Kim, congratulations on recognizing your geek-hood. (One of us! Gabba-gabba hey!) You have good taste: Frank Miller, "Freaks and Geeks," back-in-horror-mode Sam Raimi, David Gordon Green. So many of the articles I've read elsewhere have been flavorless or long-winded. Glad I got to read something with personality and wit.

From Lawson Wright:

I sincerely hope Zack Snyder doesn't screw up "Watchmen." His "Dawn of the Dead" remake was decent, and "300," as over-the-top as it was, was pretty faithful to Frank Miller's vision and made for good escapist (very escapist) fare. The "Watchmen" trailer looks beautiful, and it's in that respect that I have faith in Snyder: Sure, he'll make the movie look beautiful, but what about the story? Too much will be left out, the movie will feel crammed and hurried, it'll be a huge disappointment to die-hard fans, but maybe good enough that casual fans (or strangers to the story) will enjoy it. Even if the movie is three hours long, it won't be enough. To be fair and true to the story, I can't see how Snyder could pull this off without going the Peter Jackson route and splitting it into three movies (and even that may not be enough). But I'm sure the studio would never let him do that ... it's a comic book, after all, not a fantasy classic beloved by millions all over the world.

Get Comic-Con coverage | Send e-mail | Message board