Sorry about the delay in your comments showing up, but for some reason WordPress plugin thought they were spam.

————————————

1): You pretty much prove my point. I’m not saying all good stories need a simple premise, but the fact that you had to go beyond even one sentence to describe the story shows that it’s probably more complicated than it needs to be. Also, Batman barely makes an appearance in your synopsis. The synopsis of a Batman movie (in theory) should begin with one word: Batman…

2): “He starts as a regular criminal - he references not wanting to go back to ripping off mob lawyers and stealing.”

Does he? When was this? I don’t remember. Also, isn’t he lying? He lies other places about his past.

“His backstory is covered by the end of Batman Begins- double homicide bank robber, and the ‘escalation’ that Gordon refers to.”

So, a few lines of dialog in the *last* movie equates to a backstory?

Regarding Joker existing to be the opposite side of the coin to Batman, I get that, but Joker explaining that isn’t exactly subtle filmmaking.

3): Glad we agree on the time-passing thing. It doesn’t bother a lot of people, but I find it adds to the fatigue-factor. This movie is already long by most films at 2.5 hours–it felt longer thanks to there being no sense of night and day, excitement and calm, etc.

4): “…the periods of character dialogue between them allowed me fully enough time to grasp where everything was…”

I am pretty analytical, too, but that didn’t help me here. I felt beaten up with plot points by the end. So many minor things to keep track of.

4a): “There’s no access out of Gotham due to the fact that the Bridges and Tunnels are lined with explosives.”

OK, I missed that. It must have been in some dialog someplace that I missed.

“Comissioner Gordon suspects that whatever the Joker’s planning in going to involve the criminals the Dent put in Jail, since they’d be left under very minimal security in an empty city if they remained in Arkham. Thus they had first priority to get out of the city.”

By ferry? Seems like a truck, bus or van might be a bit more secure, safe and practical.

4b): “It’s actually an attempt on the Mayor’s life, not Dent.”

In all the chaos, I totally missed this point.

“Bruce’s following a clue to try and find where the assasination’s going to be done from, since they’ve been following the Joker’s clues to see who his previous targets were.”

Again, I totally missed this. Too much movie jammed into 2.5 hours, I think.

5a): “I assume he left the same way he came in. He manages to run out of everywhere he puts himself, and I’m certain none of Bruce’s wealthy party guests would follow him. Rachel was taken and tossed to get Batman out of the building so that he could escape.”

It seems like you’re just making excuses for the film. The bad guy got away and Batman didn’t even try to stop him. Where was Alfred? Where were the police? It was a fund raiser for Dent, surely there were other police at the party.

5b): “A second time will help with this if you watch the crooked cops.”

Sorry, but a movie shouldn’t require you to see the movie twice in order for you to grasp the basic plot elements.

“You couldn’t see it happen, because it would clue you in to the crooked cops in Gordon’s unit before it’s addressed by the Joker”

You can shoot around that. Besides, wouldn’t us knowing Gordon had crooked cops under his command heighten the tension for us?

“The movie is much more potent a second time when you hear Ramirez mention her mother in the hospital, and realize that the MCU is the reason the mob keeps getting off the hook, and Joker can continue to get away with things.”

As you explain it to me now, I don’t see how the MCU is the reason the mob keeps getting off the hook. I remember Ramirez mentioning her mother in the hospital. I don’t know what significance this has. (Yes, I get that crooked cops probably messed things up and allowed the mob to get away, but this doesn’t explain how any of the mob was allowed to be put in jail in the first place. Also, I get why Ramirez’ mom being in the hospital was how the Joker extorted her into helping him, I just don’t get your point here.)

5b i): “It’s completely possible to take a beating like that and come out ok.”

Batman is a trained bad-ass. Joker is (I assume) a common hood with an uncommon mind. He seems completely undamaged later on. How cool would it have been if the Joker had a cast or a crutch on a later heist? Or even a mention that the pain was delightful?

“Especially being a thug who handles himself well, and Batman not having any super powers either, it’s likely he’s had the living daylight beat out of him in the past by some tough people,”

This is something you’re reading into the movie. It’s not in the film. The film requires you to make an assumption. Also Batman is essentially a trained ninja. He has super powers, he’s just acquired them through years of training.

“not to mention the pain he’s had to endure to get the MASSIVE scars on his face.”

This is a good point, but since we don’t know where the scars came from, what reason do we have to even believe they’re real? The Joker is shown lying, so, in my mind, I don’t want to trust anything about him. Of course, I assume they’re real, but the movie does nothing to reinforce this assumption.

5b ii): “Gordon’s MCU has ALWAYS operated on the edge of legality with Batman”

I understand that, but this is where the film stops being realistic, in my opinion. Meeting up with Batman on the roof is one thing, but letting him into police headquarters? That seems absurd. Maybe that’s just my opinion, but it’s a weak choice that is more contrivance than it should be.

5b iii): “Batman’s basically allowed to do whatever to get the subject to talk like he’s been doing with every other criminal so far,”

All right, maybe this is my own personal opinion sneaking in again, but I don’t see this as realistic for either Gordon or Batman to believe as a reliable tactic. Joker’s proven he’s insane by this point.

“Joker told the truth because it was part of the setup.”

Wouldn’t it be more chaotic if he lied? Then both Harvey and Rachel would be dead.

Also, my question was: Why did Batman and Gordon believe the Joker would tell the truth?

“Joker’s large goal is to make Batman feel hopeless, thus switching the addresses so that he can take away the one thing that Batman would really want to save.”

What’s more hopeless than a criminal who lies even under the threat of physical violence? It would say to Batman “Fear doesn’t work with me.” In other words, it would be like saying to Batman’s face, “All this costume stuff, all the violence, all your training and all of your thinking is useless against me.”

That would be a pretty awesome direction to go in, I would think.

5c): “This isn’t as much spoon feeding the audience, as showing how the Joker’s taking painstaking care to make sure that the one man that could possibly take over batman’s position is thrown into darkness.”

I can see that, but I think it’s obvious that such a thing can be done with a bit more subtlety than the film does. I’m sticking to the spoon-feeding thing. Joker just walking in and explaining everything is heavy handed. It’s obvious what he’s doing–painfully, boringly obvious.

“If Dent’s character in the movie was schizophrenic, it would ruin the credibility for his character as being a suitable replacement for Batman.”

Which happens anyway. The tragedy of Two-Face is that it was his destiny to become this person. It wasn’t a physical deformity that made him evil (what a horrible thing that would be to say).

“The biggest point is that Joker managed to take the very best of them, and destroy everything he had done,”

Actually, Joker only needed to *think* that. Batman could have tossed Harvey’s uncovered psychiatric records at him and said “Harvey was always lost. You did nothing.”

Again, I think a stronger choice would have been to stick to the story in the comics.

5c i): “He doesn’t have split personalities.”

His name is Two-Face for a reason. Of course, in the movie, they don’t really portray him as multiple-personalitied, but he is in the comic, which is what I think I was talking about.

“He’s torn between the decision on what’s right and wrong to make people pay for the crimes that they’ve committed - thus flipping the coin to determine if he should kill the dirty cops or not.”

I understand the basic dynamic of the character. What I think you’re missing is that he *is* schizophrenic, well, he’s supposed to be. He has two personalities–one believes in justice and the other corruption. Perhaps I’m invoking the comic again.

“The Two Face reference is because he was helping them put people away, while at the same time investigating the cops in Gordon’s unit when he worked in Internal Affairs.”

Was that in the movie anywhere? I think I’d have to pull dialog from two different scenes and even then, it’s still dialog–characters explaining stuff. There’s that heavy-handed stuff again where people talk too much. Show don’t tell is the classic rule this movie violates left and right.

5c ii): “It’s unshown, and admittely a bit confusing. I would’ve appreciated a scene of Two Face leaving, but at the same time the last time you see Dent, he’s got a gun to Joker’s head that he doesn’t shoot, so Joker would’ve just let his Ace in the Hole go.”

I think that’s you reading into it. To me it looked like Joker left Two-Face to die or not (because Joker is that crazy). Seeing TF alive and functioning later was fine, but annoying.

5d): “I explained this for the most part, but it’s really a reference to Joker’s quote from the interrogation that he’ll make the people destroy each other.”

In the most convoluted, complicated way possible? Maybe this is personal opinion again, but there’s GOT to be a better way to do it than somehow getting prisoners And civilians onto two different ferries.

“It’s his intention to try to turn Gotham in on itself, thus this proposition is completely understandable.”

As with much of the movie, I have no problem with this in theory–it’s the execution that I’m disappointed with.

“What this proves is that Gotham isn’t full of people who would rather take a life than die themselves. The Prisoner throws the detonater out the window, because they’ve already had their chance. It explains exactly what Batman stated.”

I disagree and I say how in my original post above. This whole thing is contrived. The Joker still wins since the criminal decided for everyone on his boat (dictatorship) and the civilians all voted to blow up the criminals (fascism much?). Both choices were wrong and I don’t see how either is proof that Gotham is filled with good people.

6): “This is once again Batman working outside the law, so it’s not surprising.”

Batman *always* works outside the law–that wasn’t my point.

“This time, he needs someone else to work the machine,”

Alfred?

“and tell him where to look, as well as to run the search for the Joker’s voice.”

He can’t have the computer do it?

“This is set up with the “Army Cell Phone” deal that he starts behind Lucius’ back, and what alerts the other accountant to who Batman is. In building it, he avoids telling Lucius because he knows what he’d think of the machine, and thus enables Lucius’ name to destroy the machine when he builds it.”

I didn’t get that from the movie. I didn’t see it anywhere.

“Again - Batman’s a vigilante, he breaks any law necessairy for the greater good of preserving Gotham.”

I disagree, but I’d be invoking the comic again and I feel like that’s not fair to do that. On a strictly personal point, I feel that sending a message that breaking laws to protect people is a dangerous message to send, especially since it seems to work so well in the movie.

6b:) “The drop down that Bruce added to his helmet that gives him a visual display of the sonar allows him to see things in front of him just from his point of view as I understood it. He could see through multiple floors, since the signals basically allow him to look through walls and see everywhere a signal is transmitting from. Lucius is the one looking at the panning view to find where Bruce needs to be focusing his attention - thus the relay of him saying that there are cops on the roof, in the elevator, etc.”

OK, what you just said was pretty indicative of how confusing this sequence was in the movie. So, I could have gotten it wrong, but that just goes to my earlier point that there are just too many things going on in this movie. It just stops being coherent. In fact, you seeing it twice puts you at an unfair advantage to me. I am judging the film on one viewing. A second will undoubtedly bias you for the film since you liked it enough to see it again.

7): “I for one greatly enjoyed the fact that everything comes together, and then a new wrench gets thrown in the works. It’s better than a twist ending, and it keeps the story interesting.”

Well, that’s fine, but enjoying the movie doesn’t mean it was well crafted. That’s my point. Sure, the multiple climaxes may do all the things you say they do, but they’re still multiple climaxes–all of the same scale and intensity. A good filmmaker builds up to the biggest climax at the end. The hospital was just as exciting as the other climaxes.

7a): “If it went out on this note, the Joker would’ve won.”

That would have been a cool ending. I’d have been fine with that.

“It was SUPPOSED to go out with an even bigger non-empty Ferry full of people being blown sky high, but I addressed this point already, thus the Joker not being able to throw Gotham into total anarchy despite everything he did.”

Not sure I follow you regarding this–a hospital full of people being evacuated so quickly is absurd to begin with–but having the Joker rig it to explode would have been a great climax for the movie. Then the threat would have been “can we evacuate everyone fast enough?” Not, the way it turned out.

7b): “This is the big shift in character motivation, and when the movie finally gets put to a point where Batman is faced with the fact that Dent can no longer take his place, and he can never have a normal life with Rachel.”

But it’s too big–it feels like a movie-ender. In any other film, Two-Face’s appearance would have been the set up for the next movie.

7c): “This is the big message of Gotham saving itself that I’ve mentioned a few times already. Batman prevents the Joker from destroying both ferries, because it’s his job to save Gotham.”

But ultimately, Batman is not required except to stop Joker from pressing a button–not the most heroic thing for a hero to do. Then again, we’re supposed to believe Batman isn’t a hero.

7d): “The whole point of every villain in Batman is that they’re a reflection of some part of Bruce/Batman’s own personality & inner struggle. Things like this have to be explained to be able to be used to their full potential,”

I couldn’t disagree with you more. These things are already obvious. As I said in my post, the whole reason we have heroes and villains duke it out is so we don’t have to preach to people what is right and wrong.

“and there’s nothing bad about lead villian & hero having a conversation, especially at the end of the movie.”

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Most of the time such conversations end up being overly explanatory (like in DK or say, “Kill Bill”) or they end up being stupid pithy one-liner-fests where both the hero and the villain try to prove how clever they are with words.

The thing you miss is that Batman is generally not a talky guy. He’s the Dark Knight–the proverbial strong, silent type. His actions speak for themselves. At least, they should.

7e): “There’s a difference, he’s not the hero that Gotham needs. It’s not that he isn’t a hero.”

Well, I must be going deaf because I could have sworn that both Alfred and Batman say that Batman is not a hero.

“Dent and the preservation of his reputation were the hero that Gotham needed, so Batman became the one they hunted.”

He should already have been the one they hunted. That’s what I don’t get. The film makes so much out of Batman being the one taking the lumps when that’s been the case all along. Again, as far back as Jesus, heroes take the lumps so we don’t have to.

“It doesn’t say he’s not a hero at all. The whole silent protector, Dark Knight speech by Gordon at the end is a statement of him being a hero.”

Silent? :P

I’d have to see the movie again to be sure (and I don’t want to see the movie again) but I’m pretty sure there is dialog in the film that states Batman is not a hero. If memory serves, there’s also a bit of dialog where Alfred says that sometimes people deserve “more than the truth.”

This bugs me as much as the hero-stuff. Is there anything more than the truth? Are lies more than the truth? Is it OK to protect people by lying to them? I don’t think so.

But this doesn’t speak to the technical problems with the film. Just the moral ones.

————————————

Siskita

“It’s shows that he doesn’t care for money, or criminals who only focus on money that he doesn’t really acknowledge his death.”

I won’t presume to respond on Siskita’s behalf, but I think you’re reading into things again. We don’t see that Joker is ignoring the Chinese dude’s death–we see nothing at all. If he doesn’t care, it’s the film’s job to show us he doesn’t care. Show the other characters reacting to the death while Joker does not.

“Hey, I’M OVER HERE!” Joker could have said to them.

————————————

Patrick

“After Lau’s capture, the Joker basically has full resources of the entirety of every one of Gotham’s mobs, as well as the dirty cops in Gordon’s unit, so that’s how he manages to constantly stay one step ahead of everything the entire movie. (Another thing that’s easier to notice the second time through)”

This makes sense, but I think the film could have done more to show this relationship with the mob.

And now I’ll reply to “Yeratool” who’s childishness makes me want to turn off comments completely. In fact, I’m tempted to not reply to him at all. However, I do like to give everyone a chance to be nice a second time, so I’ll show him more respect than he’s showing me and any other readers of mine.

“Calm down buddy.”

Who’s not calm?

“I agree with some of what you say but im guessing it took you about a half a day to think of, write and itemize all this.”

Nope. Just a couple hours. I would have gotten to it sooner, but you know, I have a life.

“And thats just the kind of pathetic ire that deserves an extended response:”

Haha, so you don’t think commenting on a post you think is pathetic is pathetic in itself?

What are you going to do? Put me in my place? Prove your intellectual prowess–on the Internet, no less?

“You simultaneously complain about being spoon-fed and that there was too much action while also whining about not having every little action plot point shown to you (such as the kidnapping of Dent and Dawes).”

That’s right! Wow, you’re a real sharp guy! See, here’s how it works, bright-eyes (I hope you can take it as well as you can give it):

1) spoon-fed=too much dialog detailing what’s going on and what has happened. This is bad because it’s a MOVIE, SHOW don’t TELL.

2) Too much action means less time for showing.

3) I believe you just made my point for me. Yes, they should SHOW plot points to us, not TELL US ABOUT THEM.

“You can’t have it both ways.”

What “both ways” do I want it? I think your own ire has clouded your judgement here, a bit.

“You also can’t effectively demand more filler and complain about the film’s length.”

Why not? Cut out one or three of the climaxes and you’ll have plenty of time for good movie-making. Some of my favorite films are longer than 2 hours. To be honest, I’m beginning to think you’re not so sharp after all since I didn’t complain about the running-time. I complained about the movie being too long–there’s a difference. I felt the story had too much in it. My favorite movie ever is “Das Boot”. The director’s cut of that is over 3 hours long.

“I actually appreciated the jumps in time and plot with only dialogue to explain the gaps.”

That’s nice that you did. That doesn’t make it good filmmaking. A good film (in my opinion, as this is my blog) allows for a feeling of the passage of time. In my opinion, movies should feel like they are real events in time.

“Its a refreshing departure from standard hollywood action feces.”

You must not see shitty Hollywood movies very often then since almost every film out of H’wood fails to create any sense of time passing at all. This was something I said in my original post, I believe.

“It leaves more of the plot to your imagination.”

If I wanted to imagine the plot why go to the movie? Hell, I should have just imagined the plot myself–I could have seen a much better movie.

“Either the Joker went on a rampage at Dent’s event at Wayne’s place, or he couldn’t find Dent and left peacefully. Point is (and you missed it) that a LOT of time passes between the many scenes in this movie and the details that are skipped are not important to the plot.”

I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, how the bad guy gets away from the hero’s penthouse is pretty important. Hell, Alfred used to hunt people in Burma–why didn’t he try to catch Joker?

“For example, the mobster who Batman drops from a nonlethal height and breaks his legs. .Two scenes later he’s walking with a cane. Pay attention.”

Who’s not paying attention? What does this have to do with anything? So, Eric Roberts has a cane? Who had a problem with this? I think maybe you’re not paying attention.

“Pretty much all of your complaints in 5a through 5d are more ridiculous than the the minor suspensions of disbelief required to just enjoy the movie.”

So, why are you bothering with this comment at all?

“Dont be petty.”

Look who’s talking! You’re the one posting a comment on someone’s blog telling me how I’m wrong about my “petty” opinions. The least you could do is make it worth our time by mounting honest, respectful arguments instead of calling names and being a jerkweed.

“One exception: The ferry scene! I agree that that was waaay too convoluted, and it the prisoners’ presence had something to do with the fact that Dent put them all away, but it was still too much B.S. to be glossed over, which Nolan obviously attempted to do.”

Well, that makes one thing we agree on and I’m glad I’m not the only person who feels this way. Though I can tell from the rest of your comment I shouldn’t be too comfy with this crowd.

“You missed the point with number 6. All of your complaints about the sonar system are easily ignored compared to the question of how Wayne got the sonar program installed on every phone in Gotham.”

Not at all and I love it when people tell me I missed the point simultaneously as they are missing my point.

You can hack phones just as easily as you can hack computers, in theory. You could even set up a bot so you wouldn’t have to hack them all yourself. So, that nullifies your complaint entirely.

“Points 7 a, b and c: What?? Why do you think all massive explosions (or potential ones) automatically constitute climaxes. Haven’t you ever seen a movie with a large explosion in the very beginning? (Usual Suspects comes to mind) Are you really a writer??”

Haha, that’s funny. Explosions don’t always equal climaxes, this is obvious since I describe the ferries scene as a climax. It’s common Hollywood-movie language to swap out emotional excitement with explosions, so, some climaxes have explosions and others have emotional explosions. I’m sure you know this. This is why I lump all of those climaxes in together. I feel the hospital sequence would have made for a good ending because in the movie “Hard Boiled” the climax took place in a hospital. So, it’s been done, but the Joker holding it hostage would have made it substantially different enough to avoid any accusations of being a rip-off.

“I’ll ignore your “nitpicks” (your second numbered sequence, lol) since you recognize them as such, but I will agree with your contrast with the comic storyline–particularly Batman’s own edge of insanity being lost on the film-making crowd.”

Well, I’ll give you points there.

“In summary: Of COURSE this movie was not a flawless work of art, and I haven’t heard anyone call it that exactly.”

Nor have I but everyone says it’s great and wonderful and very few people acknowledge it’s actually a messy, messy film.

“But if they do, why does it bother you so much?”

If you read my blog at all (I’m guessing you don’t, that’s cool–I’m not offended or anything), you can tell that I have a thing for pointing out what falls between the cracks. Lately, it’s just been pictures of things related to my move to NYC, but before May of this year (and for roughly ten years), I have been posting a lot about things people just don’t notice. See, America has this problem facing the negative in things. Not always, but I think a $300 million opening weekend take is a good example.

Don’t you remember when “Titanic” made all that money? That movie is shit. So I just do my part, whether it’s pointing out how Bush sucked (long before Iraq or even 911) or itemizing the problems I had with DK. It’s my blog, don’t like it? No worries. You can go like other blogs. No harm no fowl.

“All I can say about your opinion is that you are a terribly cynical person. If you are really a writer, I’m glad you had no hand in DK.”

Haha, just when I was starting to like you!!

Why do you think I’m so cynical? I’m sure people like you posting insulting comments on my blog defending a movie I just took apart with a wrench and a pair of pliers has nothing to do with it.

Thanks to all of you for your comments. I’m glad I’m not alone with (some) of my opinions.

And I know what the “DONATE” links are for, I’m just not sure of two things:

1) they’re appropriate in the *middle* of him explaining how he’s doing his job–perhaps at the end of the email or the beginning, but throughout? Seems kind of tacky: “Want me to keep doing my job? Gimme money!”

Dude, where have you been and now you want money?

2) Should Wexler keep his job since he didn’t push for impeachment hearings years ago when they were first justified? I’m not so sure.

I’m all for what Wexler is doing, but I think his firey attitude and self-righteousness has come waaaay too late. So many lives could have been saved and so much face could have been saved in the eyes of history.

I do think Bill O’Reilly should take his own advice and SHUT UP. After all, he’s just some entertainment celebrity who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, right?

Or does he still think he works on a news channel? (Like actual news channels even exist anymore?)

To satisfy our customers with the excellent quality products and service, we have a full range of production price listed below, We offer Fast delivery means (UPS/USPS/FEDEX/DHL and EMS). We strongly believe EDITED OUT FOR SPAM brings you the best quality products and service With the competitive prices to meet your needs.

Email address : EDITED@OUT FOR SPAM.com
EDITED@OUT FOR SPAM.com

NINTENDO WII……$XXXUSD
NOKIA N95 8GB…..$XXXUSD
NOKIA N96 16GB….$XXXUSD
IPHONE 16GB………..$XXXUSD
iPHONE 8GB…………$XXXUSD
IPOD 32GB………$XXXUSD
Iphone 3g………$XXXusd
NOKIA N96………$XXXUSD
PS3 60GB…………..$XXXUSD
SONY ERICSSON XPERIA X1……$XXXUSD
SONY ERICSSON G900………..$XXXusd

AND MANY MORE…………

NOKIA N96 16GB SPECIFICATION

PACKAGE CONTENTS:
1 Nokia N96 16GB Phone
1 Li-ion Battery BL-6F
1 USB Cable
1 User Manual (Hard Copy or CD)
1 CD Rom
1 International Charger US Adapter Or (US Charger)
Nokia Connectivity Cable CA-101
Nokia Stereo Headset and Remote HS-45, AD-54
Nokia Mobile Charger DC-4 (car charger)
Nokia Compact Travel Charger AC-5

Return Policy:
You may return the item within ten (10) days of delivery of the order. Products with Manufacturer Warranties which exceed 30 days, may be returned
directly to the manufacturer according to their instructions. Customer may request a replacement product otherwise company credit will be issued. A restocking fee
maybe applied to your return.

Sales Rep
EDITED OUT FOR SPAM
Email: EDITED@OUT FOR SPAM.com
EDITED@OUT FOR SPAM.com

You can also have live chat with us on (EDITED@OUT FOR SPAM.com).

***This post sufficiently edited by ThePete thanks to it being blatant and shitty spam. I’m all for making money but HOW ‘BOUT HAVING YOUR OWN SITE, DICKWEED. You going to SHARE your profits with me?? I DOUBT IT, so PISS OFF AND DON’T SPAM HERE AGAIN. You do and your IP is banned. -ThePete***