The Dark Knight

Post by **Freakzilla** » 21 Jul 2008 17:16

orald wrote:Those drugs are prescription only, right? Just, uh, checking...

Yes.

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 21 Jul 2008 19:26

Freakzilla wrote:
orald wrote:Those drugs are prescription only, right? Just, uh, checking...
Yes.

The weird feeling I got from reading that, he was taking 3 kinds of the same class of drug. Benzodiazepines are the #1 abused Rx in the world. Throw in Oxys and codeine on top of that...

It reeks of multiple doctors giving him anything he wanted.

Spicelon · Post by **Spicelon** » 21 Jul 2008 22:07

He obviously didn't care for bowels properly.

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » 21 Jul 2008 22:14

I think either they killed him, or he just got way too into the role.

Apparently, he locked himself in a hotel room for a month before filming started to get himself into the correct mindset. He also wrote diary entries as the Joker. (all according to Wiki, so subject to the usual problems with Wiki)

I'm pretty sure if you actually try to BE that insane in order to ACT that insane, you might just lose it.

But. I wouldn't doubt they killed him. I'm sure people have been killed for much less money.

trang · Post by **trang** » 22 Jul 2008 07:48

I give dark knight 3 out of 4 lasguns. It was a worthy Sequel to Batman begins, and Heath Ledger did a good job as joker.

It had some issues though that kept me from walking out of the theatre saying "Awesome".

1. the run time was to long.

2. The action kind of peters out the last portion of the movie.

3. I didnt feel Batman had enough action/encounters with the Joker.

4. I felt the stage of development that Batman was wasnt ready for the triple threaded issues in the film. ( I would go more into detail but dont want to spoil it for others)

5. I felt a little lacking in the Batman Equipment department.

6. I would have liked a Smidgen more Psycho humor out of the joker. The part where he asks if they want to see a magic trick is hilarious, and when where is trying to get the switch to work blowing up the hospital is cool two, but not quite enough.

7. terrible choice for replacement for Katie Holmes, really dragged down that portion of the story.

I would have scaled back the two face character, and put more emphasis on batman and the joker.

I would have cut it to 110-120 minutes, and carried over to the next sequel two face and other things.

Couple other minor things, but again overall was good movie, worth seeing, and great continuation to series revival.

Trang

Post by **Freakzilla** » 22 Jul 2008 11:26

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/report-batman ... r/11062?nc

'Batman' accused of assaulting mom, sister

LONDON - Batman star Christian Bale was arrested Tuesday over allegations of assaulting his mother and sister, police and British media said.

British media had reported that Bale's mother and sister complained they were assaulted by the 34-year-old actor at the Dorchester Hotel in London on Sunday night, a day before the European premiere of his latest film, "The Dark Knight."

The women made the allegation at a local police station in southern England on Monday, Britain's Press Association news agency said.

Asked whether Bale had been arrested, a police spokesman did not refer to him by name but said: "A 34-year-old man attended a central London police station this morning by appointment and was arrested in connection with an allegation of assault." He said the man was still in custody but gave no further details.

The spokesman spoke on condition of anonymity because force policy did not authorize him to be identified. British police do not name suspects before they are formally charged.

U.S.-based representatives for Bale didn't immediately return messages seeking comment. Repeated phone calls to Bale's London representative went unanswered.

The Sun newspaper said police didn't question the actor Monday because they didn't want to interfere with the premiere of the movie.

Wales-born Bale first made a splash as the child star of Steven Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun" in 1987. His screen credits also include "American Psycho," "The Machinist" and "Batman Begins."

In "The Dark Knight," Bale reprises the role of wealthy playboy Bruce Wayne and his crime-fighting alter-ego Batman, a brooding vigilante superhero still scarred by the murder of his parents.

The film, which stars the late Heath Ledger as Batman's nemesis The Joker, took in a record $158.4 million at the box office in its opening weekend in the U.S. last week.

Spicelon · Post by **Spicelon** » 22 Jul 2008 11:35

Now THAT's the behavior fitting of the angsty, brooding Batman we all know
and love!

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 22 Jul 2008 12:41

lol...wtf?..it was too long?!?!?!? ....that was the shortest 2 and a half hours of my life...i wish time went by that fast at work...i disagree with about everything you said....except......Rachel Dawes's actor (yes..i said actor..that bitch is too ugly to be called actress) ..god that bitch sucked .... besides that stupid cow though....i think its the best movie i've ever seen at the theatre... its the only movie where i had to remind myself to breathe .... even ropert and ebert said they think it should be an oscar best picture nominee

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 22 Jul 2008 12:44

as far as his mom and sister pressing assault charges...im sure its exaggerated...they were probably typical stupid women...they were probably in his face...and he pushed them away...OMG ASSAULT...HE LAID HIS HANDS ON ME!!!... I bet the greedy, unaccountable, soul sucking, walking holes deserved it

Post by **Freakzilla** » 22 Jul 2008 12:44

Tyrant wrote:.... even ropert and ebert said they think it should be an oscar best picture nominee

I just read today that they quit their show.

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 22 Jul 2008 12:57

Freakzilla wrote:
Tyrant wrote:.... even ropert and ebert said they think it should be an oscar best picture nominee
I just read today that they quit their show.

hmm...thats odd..i just watched their review on the internet today for The Dark Knight

Post by **Omphalos** » 22 Jul 2008 14:00

i thought it was pretty good, up until they revealed that stupid damn super technology pulled right out of their asses to resolve the unresolvable problem. WTF was that? The movie was chugging right along just fine, and then they had to go and make a super machine that can solve whatever problem they want, and they make it dependent on altering everyone's cell phones from a distance. Just F'ing stupid if you ask me. And up until that point they had comformed with all the established rules of Batman and the world they have created. Hackish, I say, and it changed my impression of the entire movie.

And the editing in some parts was terrible too. In one part Salvatore Maroni got into his car, then a split second later he is sitting the car and turns to his left and sees Two-Face sitting there with a gun. Like he would not have noticed him before he got into the damn car and closed his door? And all the editing to turn attention away when The Joker committed some horrible act of violence was choppy and a lazy attemtp to make the film PG-13 worhty. Laziness, I say.

And why did they even bother having the Scarecrow in this? What a waste of time that was.

Heath Ledger did an excellent job. His character unfolded really well. First you think he has an agenda, then you think hes just fucking nuts, then you realize hes more self-destructive than anything else, then he's back to an agenda again, and all of it made sense. The writers did a good job with his plots too.

And as far as plots go, this one was a bit weak over all. Like they are going to empty Gotham City out because of one nutjob with a few bombs? Come on. Im sure the citizens of NYC and Chicago (both of which stood in for Gotham) will love that one. And, a load of convicts goes by boat before other citizens do? A ham-handed attempt to add gravitas, and to twist the audience's expectations about the human nature of criminals (which is incidentally the major theme of Batman, but this was a bit much). Sheer idiocy.

And Maggie Gyllenhall? Really? I never understood the fascination with Maggie Gyllenhall. I have friends who drool over her. I just dont get it. She's old before her years, she sucks as an actress, and man, is she hard on the eyes too! I was glad when they blew her ass up.

For a "best movie release of the year" that was supposed to be Oscar worthy before it was even released, I would expect more.

orald · Post by **orald** » 22 Jul 2008 14:23

Tyrant wrote:as far as his mom and sister pressing assault charges...im sure its exaggerated...they were probably typical stupid women...they were probably in his face...and he pushed them away...OMG ASSAULT...HE LAID HIS HANDS ON ME!!!... I bet the greedy, unaccountable, soul sucking, walking holes deserved it

Yea! Fucking moms...

Spicelon · Post by **Spicelon** » 22 Jul 2008 14:36

Omphalos wrote:i thought it was pretty good, up until they revealed that stupid damn super technology pulled right out of their asses to resolve the unresolvable problem. WTF was that? The movie was chugging right along just fine, and then they had to go and make a super machine that can solve whatever problem they want, and they make it dependent on altering everyone's cell phones from a distance. Just F'ing stupid if you ask me. And up until that point they had comformed with all the established rules of Batman and the world they have created. Hackish, I say, and it changed my impression of the entire movie.

And the editing in some parts was terrible too. In one part Salvatore Maroni got into his car, then a split second later he is sitting the car and turns to his left and sees Two-Face sitting there with a gun. Like he would not have noticed him before he got into the damn car and closed his door? And all the editing to turn attention away when The Joker committed some horrible act of violence was choppy and a lazy attemtp to make the film PG-13 worhty. Laziness, I say.

And why did they even bother having the Scarecrow in this? What a waste of time that was.

Heath Ledger did an excellent job. His character unfolded really well. First you think he has an agenda, then you think hes just fucking nuts, then you realize hes more self-destructive than anything else, then he's back to an agenda again, and all of it made sense. The writers did a good job with his plots too.

And as far as plots go, this one was a bit weak over all. Like they are going to empty Gotham City out because of one nutjob with a few bombs? Come on. Im sure the citizens of NYC and Chicago (both of which stood in for Gotham) will love that one. And, a load of convicts goes by boat before other citizens do? A ham-handed attempt to add gravitas, and to twist the audience's expectations about the human nature of criminals (which is incidentally the major theme of Batman, but this was a bit much). Sheer idiocy.

And Maggie Gyllenhall? Really? I never understood the fascination with Maggie Gyllenhall. I have friends who drool over her. I just dont get it. She's old before her years, she sucks as an actress, and man, is she hard on the eyes too! I was glad when they blew her ass up.

For a "best movie release of the year" that was supposed to be Oscar worthy before it was even released, I would expect more.

Hey man, don't harsh my mellow by bringing facts and pointed, well
thought out observations into it. You're bumming me out, man!

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 22 Jul 2008 22:31

Just saw it; it was fantastic. If anything, it was better than the first (a true rarity).

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 22 Jul 2008 22:54

Omphalos wrote: And Maggie Gyllenhall? Really? I never understood the fascination with Maggie Gyllenhall. I have friends who drool over her. I just dont get it. She's old before her years, she sucks as an actress, and man, is she hard on the eyes too! I was glad when they blew her ass up.

For a "best movie release of the year" that was supposed to be Oscar worthy before it was even released, I would expect more.

I thought Gyllenhall was a great casting decision. Instead of having some drop-dead gorgeous leading lady, they chose a more average looking woman to normalize the movie. Her acting seemed fine to me.

Your friends that drooled over her, well, uh, ....

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » 23 Jul 2008 00:03

HoosierDaddy wrote:
Omphalos wrote: And Maggie Gyllenhall? Really? I never understood the fascination with Maggie Gyllenhall. I have friends who drool over her. I just dont get it. She's old before her years, she sucks as an actress, and man, is she hard on the eyes too! I was glad when they blew her ass up.

For a "best movie release of the year" that was supposed to be Oscar worthy before it was even released, I would expect more.
I thought Gyllenhall was a great casting decision. Instead of having some drop-dead gorgeous leading lady, they chose a more average looking woman to normalize the movie. Her acting seemed fine to me.

Your friends that drooled over her, well, uh, ....

I think she's pretty damn attractive, personally, but that could be because she looks "different." I'm weird like that.

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 23 Jul 2008 06:46

HoosierDaddy wrote:
Omphalos wrote: And Maggie Gyllenhall? Really? I never understood the fascination with Maggie Gyllenhall. I have friends who drool over her. I just dont get it. She's old before her years, she sucks as an actress, and man, is she hard on the eyes too! I was glad when they blew her ass up.

For a "best movie release of the year" that was supposed to be Oscar worthy before it was even released, I would expect more.
I thought Gyllenhall was a great casting decision. Instead of having some drop-dead gorgeous leading lady, they chose a more average looking woman to normalize the movie. Her acting seemed fine to me.

Your friends that drooled over her, well, uh, ....

great casting decision?...her character was named Rachel Dawes....but it didnt seem like Rachel Dawes to me...she was totally out of character with her terrible body language and her horse face the whole movie.... she blows goats...literally

and her brother is that fag (not that theres anything wrong with that--- jerry seinfeld) Jake whos a tobey maguire wanna be

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » 23 Jul 2008 12:06

Tyrant wrote:and her brother is that fag (not that theres anything wrong with that--- jerry seinfeld) Jake whos a tobey maguire wanna be

What?

Jake Gyllenhaal made it big with Donnie Darko before Tobey Maguire scored the Spiderman role. If anything Maguire's the wannabe(although both actors did several movies before they became popular, so I don't see how either can be considered a wannabe of the other).

Post by **Omphalos** » 23 Jul 2008 12:08

Take it over to the National Enquirer website, girls!

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » 23 Jul 2008 12:31

Jes' saying.

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 23 Jul 2008 14:26

OK, for a different perspective, how about the original Batman and Robin being homosexual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman

There has been some controversy over various sexual interpretations made regarding the content of Batman comics. Homosexual interpretations have been part of the academic study of Batman since psychologist Fredric Wertham asserted in Seduction of the Innocent that "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual". He claimed, "The Batman type of story may stimulate children to homosexual fantasies, of the nature of which they may be unconscious". Wertham wrote, "Only someone ignorant of the fundamentals of psychiatry and of the psychopathology of sex can fail to realize a subtle atmosphere of homoeroticism which pervades the adventures of the mature 'Batman' and his young friend 'Robin'".[111]

Andy Medhurst wrote in his essay "Batman, Deviance, and Camp" that Batman is interesting to gay audiences because "he was one of the first fictional characters to be attacked on the grounds of his presumed homosexuality," "the 1960s TV series remains a touchstone of camp," and "[he] merits analysis as a notably successful construction of masculinity."[112]

Creators associated with the character have expressed their own opinions. Writer Alan Grant has stated, "The Batman I wrote for 13 years isn't gay. Denny O'Neil's Batman, Marv Wolfman's Batman, everybody's Batman all the way back to Bob Kane... none of them wrote him as a gay character. Only Joel Schumacher might have had an opposing view". Writer Devin Grayson has commented, "It depends who you ask, doesn't it? Since you're asking me, I'll say no, I don't think he is ... I certainly understand the gay readings, though".[113] While Frank Miller has described the relationship between Batman and the Joker as a "homophobic nightmare",[114] he views the character as sublimating his sexual urges into crime fighting, concluding, "He'd be much healthier if he were gay".[115] Burt Ward has also remarked upon this interpretation in his autobiography Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights, noting the relationship could be interpreted as a sexual one, with the show's double entendres and lavish camp also possibly offering ambiguous interpretation.[116]

Some continue to play off the homosexual interpretations of Batman. One notable example occurred in 2000, when DC Comics refused to allow permission for the reprinting of four panels (from Batman #79, 92, 105 and 139) to illustrate Christopher York's paper All in the Family: Homophobia and Batman Comics in the 1950s.[117] Another happened in the summer of 2005, when painter Mark Chamberlain displayed a number of watercolors depicting both Batman and Robin in suggestive and sexually explicit poses.[118] DC threatened both artist and the Kathleen Cullen Fine Arts gallery with legal action if they did not cease selling the works and demanded all remaining art, as well as any profits derived from them.[119]

orald · Post by **orald** » 23 Jul 2008 14:32

Are we talking about the same chick, Omph?

Rakis · Post by **Rakis** » 23 Jul 2008 22:55

That makes me think of that Ambiguously Gay Duo from SNL...great stuff

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2976673014

Post by **Omphalos** » 24 Jul 2008 00:48

orald wrote:Are we talking about the same chick, Omph?

That picture is probably old and she's way done up. That is not what she looks like. But yes, she is skinny and she can look good. With a team of specialists, an excellent lighting guy and some vaseline on the lens.