Re: The Dark Knight
 

The IMAX is awesome; it's just that there isn't an IMAX anywhere near me is what I meant. :)

Re: The Dark Knight
 

I was fortunate enough to see the film last week at an exhibitor screening. Over at another forum I posted some very broad *spoiler free* thoughts about the film. Anyone have any interest in reading them here?

Re: The Dark Knight
 

If they contain spoilers or any hints of spoilers, no. At least not until the movie comes out for the rest of us schlubs. :cool:

Re: The Dark Knight
 

I'm amazed from what it does for a live concert.

As far as movies go, I'm not so sure yet.

Re: The Dark Knight
 

Yeah, they're spoiler free and just that, broad statements.

Re: The Dark Knight
 

post that hot fire!

Re: The Dark Knight
 

The only thing I saw in an IMAX presentation was the opening of The Dark Knight before I am Legend, and while it was impressive, it was a very large square frame. I know only three or four sequences of the film were shot in the IMAX format and when I saw the film it was in a standard presentation cinema. I'd imagine the action sequences will be pretty great in IMAX, but the film on it's own without the IMAX sequences was still just as impressive.

Did you see the Rolling Stones film in IMAX jOHN?

Re: The Dark Knight
 

What Batman Begins did efficiently was being an origin story that started with the right foot forward. With all those pieces in place, in film two we can get down to business.

The film is structured and paced at such a fine clip that you don't notice the time. A great deal of this is attributed to the story and how involving it becomes very quickly. Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter and brother Jonathan have focused more on the dramatic elements of the story. That's not to say that the film lacks action, there is plenty of it, but for what seems like a first, Nolan has made an almost entirely chronological film.

The next point of issue is Heath Ledger, who does a fine, fine job as The Joker that is truly quite startling at times. The Joker's dominance of the story is such that he's a catalyst, but not always primary. Expect praise for Ledger's work here, and rightly so, you cannot tell it's him throughout the film. Ledger is exquisite and has some of the best scenes in the film. His nihilistic behavior and antics are quite something to behold, and have been built up a bit, to the point that pessimism could enter the viewers mind, but then something disturbing occurs that throws that pessimism to the wind.

Ledger's portrayal reminded me of a lot in reflection of a wild, anarchic version of the killer John Doe in se7en, portrayed by Kevin Spacey. I'm surprised no one has made this analogy yet. The Joker has an utter lack of regard for anyone or anything. The difference being, John Doe's intention was a bit deeper, The Joker is much more surface, chaotic, anarchic(not to be redundant using the same word twice), and malicious, with the selflessness that he doesn't care, even about himself.

The usual suspects are present from the last film. Scary Gary Oldman as Gordon, who is now becoming a bigger fish in the food chain, Lucious Fox still doing the R&D for Bruce Wayne, and now Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel. Gyllenhaal is quite an improvement over Katie Holmes, not that Holmes was bad, but Maggie is a far superior actress. Also new to the cast is Aaron Eckhart as Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent. His role and prominence in the film only grows as the film progresses.

These characters are so well composed within this large mosaic of a story that weaves from act to act with relative ease neither feeling forced or noticeable to the viewer with one or two exceptions in the last act of the film.

Each of these characters mentioned above, exude a strong emotional pull that begins subtly and swiftly. With some events that occurred in the film I found myself reacting quite strongly. Not to demoralize the film for it's time of release or content, but the emotional responses it elicited I find myself experiencing more often during the pandering award season later in the year. I'm convinced that while this is a 'tent pole', 'comic book film', it's also quite serious in it's tone and structure and treatment of the story and characters that most audiences will fail to see or acknowledge. The story just wraps you up and takes you away from the beginning. Just like the previous film, there are no titles, the film just starts.

People were raving back when Spiderman 2 came out about it being the best comic book sequel. I should clarify before progressing any further that I found that film difficult to sit through. This film, as a sequel is leaps and bounds above Spiderman 2 or any other film in this genre. Close comparisons could be made to X-Men 2 and that is a very valid comparison that The Dark Knight exceeds. But this film while not quite at the level of say The Empire Strikes Back or The Wrath of Kahn is pretty damn close. It's that good. A great deal of this should be attributed to Christopher Nolan's respect and treatment of the source material and the property and some bright folks having faith in a filmmaker for once instead of undermining them.

I realize I've been quite vague and this has been a very deliberate choice. If there is more that would like to be known, please ask.

Re: The Dark Knight
 

Unfortunately, no. I'm kind of on hardcore restriction.

Re: The Dark Knight
 

oh I had no idea Holmes had been replaced. Thats great news! This has nothing to do with her personal life blah blah but I thought she was quite unbelievable in her role in the first flick.