Why so serious?

[Roderick]

Guess who's getting pretty for the premiere?

Here's my card.

Well, hellooo beautiful!

[Wrestlevania]

Disturbingly good.

Now you just have to talk to everyone you meet like they're a small, stupid child--while licking your lips constantly.

I'm off to a local preview with a gross of work colleagues this Wednesday night, but it's an agonising wait.

[Roderick]

As chance would have it, I got tickets to a prepremiere on Tuesday evening in the IMAX theatre in Amsterdam. That's hot, and so exciting I'm soiling myself.

It's a bit of a shame I won't have the full costume ready on Tuesday. Time was just too short, so I'll be wearing clothes the Joker would wear if he wasn't already wearing what he wears. Acting like him is surprisingly easy once the paint is on. I can't wait to scare small children on the streets

(I've also made Harvey Dent For District Attorney buttons, both pristine and defaced, that I can wear and distribute amongst the cinema crowd. Gonna be awesome.)

[Wrestlevania]

Due to a booking cock-up, we have no tickets for Wednesday... :\

Trying to see if we can get in somewhere else this week, but it's not looking good. Gutted.

[Roderick]

=( Sucks dude

[Wrestlevania]

[Roderick]

Well, I had the prepremiere yesterday and it was great! I was the only person in costume though, so many pictures were taken and today I even appeared in the news on the site from the radio station that organized the event. Cool!

http://www.3fm.nl/page/3fm_actueel/269130/

[Wrestlevania]

Well done, you looked fantastic!

Was it an IMAX screening as the article suggests to my non-understanding eyes? If so, how was it? I heard negative things about Batman Begins on IMAX, so I'm very curious to know what you thought of the sequel in Super Humongous -o-Vision.

[Roderick]

Aye, it was IMAX. With my layman's knowledge I didn't even know it was so much more specialerer, but it was definitely a treat. The sound was amazing and booming, and the screen was huge indeed. I'm afraid that if I watch it now in a normal cinema it'll disappoint

I read that there were only six or so scenes filmed with IMAX cameras, including the opening. I didn't really notice big differences though, so I think it's something mostly those in the know will appreciate, and those who don't won't even notice it that much. Or maybe I just got hit with the stupid stick yesterday.

[Nachimir]

Last time I went to an Imax screen it was for a matrix film; it was 8 stories high and I got neckache because I kept having to turn my head to see different things in the shot. I also got distracted by learning that Keanu Reeves has a line of three blemishes on his chin that aren't apparent at standard definition.

The spectacle of the action on a screen that huge kind of made up for it being a disappointing load of bollocks though

[Scrobbs]

I heard negative things about Batman Begins on IMAX, so I'm very curious to know what you thought of the sequel in Super Humongous -o-Vision.

Really? blimey. I saw it on a 'normal' cinema screen, then about a week later saw it on Imax. They both rocked.

[Nachimir]

I was going to see this with a load of friends tonight, but they all said "I'll get my own ticket"... now it seems I'm the only one who managed to get one in time

[elmuerte]

I'm also going to see it tonight with some friends, we just reserved a bunch of tickets

[Wrestlevania]

I'm not going to see it tonight, as no-one was interested in trying to book any tickets after the balls up earlier in the week.

And my brother's away for the weekend (as is usual nowadays) so I'm thinking of going on my own sometime next week.

[vimes]

I'm not going to see it tonight because the release date in France is a week from now.

[Ginger]

I'm surprised they were able to show a non-French film in France, well that's sarko's rein of terror for, u have to work more and watch shitty Hollywood movies.

[Nachimir]

(Ok, there were 8 of us in the end, but the guy organising had to go to a later showing with a couple of other people )

I am impressed. Not sure Ledger is "better" than Nicholson, because the tone of these films is so much darker. I far prefer him and this lot of films to the last ones though.

I'm going to make this pencil disappear. DADA!

Excellent

[elmuerte]

awesome

too bad for Christian Bale though

I'm going to make this pencil disappear. DADA!

people applauded after that

[ThunderPeel2001]

Just got back from it... Holy crap. What a film (if not entirely good in the way you probably expect it to be). Intense, intelligent, gruelling. Phew.

The whole thing to do with Heath Ledger is the saddest part, though. I came away truly unhappy that we've lost such an amazing actor -- and also such a great adversary for Batman (sorry if that sounds shallow -- but he's brilliant).

Such an odd experience - his death definitely taints the movie going experience in some way, and surely has something to do with it breaking all those records (it's currently listed as THE best film of all time on IMdB -- which it most definitely is not). You can't help but feel something for Ledger after watching it, though. As Gary Oldman put it: What an incredible shit-bomb. Just one of those things, but one I could definitely do without.

The film itself was so dense that I think they could have easily drawn it out over two films... but I'm glad they didn't. More solid, well-crafted story-telling from Christopher Nolan. Thank you, sir

[Roderick]

Ah yes, the

pencil

. That was great

The movie was indeed quite dense, and though that compells me to watch it again to really come to terms with it, at first glance there are some drawbacks to it. The structure feels very fragmented and dislocated. Worse perhaps is that the movie seems to have slipped back into the 'let's forget about Batman' mood, putting the villains that much more in the front row. As it is, The Prestige was a much better film (it really sucked me in and got me emotionally invested, something TDK didn't quite manage to do so intensely), but The Dark Knight, for all its lesser points, still brings endless unique and amazing moments to the table; a smattering of ideas of talent. And in that chaos, destructive for the movie though it may be, beautiful things happen.

[Roderick]

I put a rather long analysis of the movie on my site: http://www.captainaugust.com/

Check it out. Would like to know what you think.

[DanJW]

In the pub where I work, we were last night visited by the Joker, Two-Face, and Poison Ivy. OK Poison Ivy is not in the film but it was a good costume. Shame there was no Harley Quinn. I've always had a thing for Harley Quinn (hey that rhymed! It could be an awesome song!)

I must see the film next week.

[Wrestlevania]

I'm planning to see it next week too, otherwise I'll likely miss it in the cinema altogether--we're off to France for a fortnight next Sunday.

[n0wak]

I liked the movie, it had a lot of great parts and moments

pencil!

but, overall, I thought it was kinda flat. It had all these ancillary plot threads that never really went anywhere or where stretched too long for no purpose. Batman's entire trip outside of Gotham City seemed pointless.

It also served as a set-up for the entire sonar thing, which was really fucking stupid. It's like Nolan wanted to make a statement about privacy, a watched society, but didn't have time to squeeze an extra "idea" into the plot. Instead, it became this unnecessary and non-sense device used to further the plot -- find Joker -- when Batman's regular old detective work should have sufficed. Meh. And the Bat Cycle sequences were super lame.

Overall it felt very inconsistent to me. When it was good, it was great. When it was ok, it was excessively pointless. Would have been a 10/10 if they had an editor with balls.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Good analysis Rodi. I agree with pretty much everything you said

although the Sonar thing didn't bother me THAT much, I guess it was a bit silly

I've written my own critique based on my concerns (ignoring all the great aspects of the movie -- and it was an excellent film):

The film is very dark. It's almost dark for the sake of being dark, which is a trap that comics fell into in the late 80s and early 90s -- Dark doesn't equal "good". I just hope that Nolan isn't going to keep trying to make it darker and darker, this is about as dark as any comic book film should ever be.

The darkness also, for me at least, prevented any real emotional resonance. The only "character" that had a happy ending was Gotham City itself, something I'm not emotionally connected with at all. How will a sequel continue the story if the ultimate resolution is the cleaning up of Gotham City -- something I'm not that emotionally connected with? I hope Nolan and co have thought it through.

Despite all this, the film is perfectly structured, of course. The Dark Knight isn't just a cool-sounding title, it's actually a huge part of the storyline... Which is pretty damned impressive and sends a clear message that if your script isn't so polished that it's actually *gleaming* when you're about to go into production, then, please, don't bother.

I do have other issues with this film though, and they're really the way that the original comics could become an albatross around the franchise's neck. The film series has, in my opinion, surpassed the original comics (or at least broken free of their confines) and I think holding back because of them would be a huge a mistake. What am I talking about? Well, let's look at Harvey Dent.

Harvey Dent's storyline serves the film perfectly. The fallen hero. The icon of hope ruined by Gotham's biggest terror. It leads to an excellent resolution and the reason for the film's title. All good. But if you were adding this character to the Batman universe from scratch, would you really have his face half-destroyed and give him a penchant for flicking a coin?

The answer is, if you ask me, a resounding "no". Those elements were easily the weakest part of a very strong, well-rounded character. Ie. The film was held back by the original comic series. Was his character or the storyline any *better* because half his face was ruined? Was his character or the storyline any *stronger* because he was obsessed with chance and coin tossing? No, these traits are the two-dimensional traits of a super-hero villain invented in the 1940s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Twoface-tec66.jpg

I honestly think that Nolan's films have far surpassed the limitations of the original Batman comics to the point where they should just start inventing their own baddies, rather than trying (and, admittedly, being mostly successful at) shoehorning odd character-traits into realistic human beings. These cartoon icons were invented to entertain children during WWII, they were never intended that they be taken seriously... and if Nolan keeps going down the current route, having to make these caricatures into realistic people, I'm afraid that his amazing franchise will suffer.

As Alan Moore put it, after the whole industry started aping his "dark" style in Watchmen; It was never the intention of these [30s comic book] characters to be made gritty for the sake of grittiness, but after the success of Watchmen, everyone started trying to copy the "darkness" and "realism" of it. But that was only one aspect of the whole story, it wasn't all they were supposed to take away from it.

(Also, I felt there were too many gadgets )

Note: The Alan Moore "quote", while accurately reflecting what he said, isn't an exact quote, as I still can't find the interview where he said it.