The Dark Knight: News, Reviews, your Views. "SPOILERS" welcome!

[optom3]

Yes, I suspect that there really are huge differences (based on what I recall from the Nicholson version)... especially the overall style of the movie.  As we see from some of Leslie's reporting... the Joker is sometimes portrayed in a goofy/ campy way and sometimes very sinister.  In the Nicholson version it's clear the campy version is what they were after.

Having seen TDK twice now, I really do think there are moments when Heath is taking some vocal cues from Nicholson.  Not necessarily specifically Nicholson's Joker... but Nicholson's general sort of raspy-airy way of speaking.  And, even some of the sing-songiness of Nicholson's typical speech pattern comes through in Heath's Joker's voice I think.  The way Heath does it, the voice comes out sounding very innovative... but I really do think he was probably occasionally making a little hommage to Nicholson (since I gather Heath really respected Nicholson anyway).

I agree with the voice thing, and even the hair flick !!! I just think Heath took some elements and rather than upping the ante on a more lighthearted camp version, he used Jacks' performance as some sort of gauge and took it through 180 degs. to produce something much more sinister. What made me really think about the whole thing, is the fact that in parts I even felt some pathos emerge from Heaths' performance.I was amazed to find myself feeling sorry for the joker at times.I even wanted to know who had hurt him so badly that this was the end result.
I never felt pity for Jack's version, but it made me laugh at times.
What emerged from the 2 versions then, was this empathy on some level, be it either humour or pathos.So in neither version did I feel 100% hatred and disgust.There were some very occasional redeeming qualities that rescued the joker from being pure unadulterated evil.
I preferred Heaths' version. because I am biased and also because I feel the empathy he engenders with his performance, is more hard won than with Jacks'.

[belbbmfan]

Okay, so I've thought about this long and hard...and I've decided to go watch TDK with the eurobrokies.


Well...that's what I think now, i might change my mind of course! 

So, I'm slowly going throught this whole thread, spoilers and all. I figure I need to know as much about this movie as I possible can (the violence, when NOT to look or listen etc).

It sounds very very scary I have to say. I didn't watch 'No Country For Old Men' either because it was too scary. My husband saw it and agreed that it was not for me.

[MaineWriter]

Well, Fabienne, if it is any comfort, I refused to see "No Country for Old Men," too.

As I have said previously, this is cartoonish enough that I found I could really ignore the violence. Plus it is much more about blowing things up and looking scary vs. bullets and lots of blood.

L

[Brown Eyes]

when NOT to look or listen etc

Here's my advice... and this is a Spoiler too...


Watch out for Harvey Dent after he gets burned.  Now that I've seen it twice I know exactly when to avert my eyes or how to look at an obscure corner of the screen when he's involved in a scene after he's injured.  To me, Harvey Dent was by far the most gruesome thing about the film.

I wasn't prepared for it the first time I saw the film and **bblleegghh!!!**  I wish I had been warned.  If I saw this movie when I was a child, I would have had nightmares about Harvey Dent for days.


And, I agree with Leslie, that the movie as a whole didn't leave me with a feeling of being scared or frightened either (other than being grossed out on one or two occasions).  And, definitely keep in mind the idea that you're watching a "live action" comic book.  That can help.

I thoroughly recommend seeing it on the big screen, so I definitely encourage you to go.

[Ellemeno]

Here's my advice... and this is a Spoiler too...


Watch out for Harvey Dent after he gets burned.  Now that I've seen it twice I know exactly when to avert my eyes or how to look at an obscure corner of the screen when he's involved in a scene after he's injured.  To me, Harvey Dent was by far the most gruesome thing about the film.

I wasn't prepared for it the first time I saw the film and **bblleegghh!!!**  I wish I had been warned.  If I saw this movie when I was a child, I would have had nightmares about Harvey Dent for days.


And, I agree with Leslie, that the movie as a whole didn't leave me with a feeling of being scared or frightened either (other than being grossed out on one or two occasions).  And, definitely keep in mind the idea that you're watching a "live action" comic book.  That can help.

I thoroughly recommend seeing it on the big screen, so I definitely encourage you to go.

Yes, I also watched Two-Face out of a little viewing hole I made with my hands, so I wouldn't have to see his face.  Very creepy at first.  But you know, even that, by near the end, I was seeing as pretend.

[Meryl]

I agree with Amanda and Clarissa.  It's so cartoony and contrived, the violence has less impact.  The kind of violence that haunts me is the kind where you care about the victim beforehand and suffer emotionally for them.  The only one vaguely in that category is Harvey Dent, but I thought his emotional character was so undeveloped that I wasn't all that affected by his disfiguration either.  It seemed more calculated to satisfy the fanboys' appetite for gruesomeness than make us sorry for him.  Even the police cell scene where Batman beats the Joker up didn't have much impact, because the Joker seemed perky as ever afterwards.

[belbbmfan]

Thanks for all the advice ladies! 


And in preparation, there was a Steven Seagall movie on tv last night. There seems to be an endless stream of them and the slow summer season is a good excuse for one of our tv channels to show them in prime time!

So I had some good practise in the 'violence for violence sake' department! His movies are awfull btw.

[Brown Eyes]

Even the police cell scene where Batman beats the Joker up didn't have much impact, because the Joker seemed perky as ever afterwards.

Yes, I think we're supposed to realize that Batman doesn't have much of an impact on the Joker and vice versa. 

And, I think the Joker is being serious (no bad pun intended) when he says he doesn't want to kill Batman because he's too much fun to torment.

Thinking about the scenes where the Joker is in the interrogation room... do Heathens out there believe that the Joker's socks were meant to be an inside joke?  I'm thinking of the scene where the Joker is sitting on the floor and his really bright socks are very visible.

[LauraGigs]

I wasn't prepared for it the first time I saw the film and **bblleegghh!!!**  I wish I had been warned.

"**bblleegghh!!!**"  LOL, very expressive typing!   

Seriously though, I agree; it was by far the most terrifying thing.  (That and the fake-batman's body suddenly dropping next to the mayor's window.)

Impressive makeup/CGI on Two-Face, scary as it was.

[LauraGigs]

Pacing and suspension-of-disbelief issues aside, I enjoyed the acting performances a lot.  A nice ensemble film.  I liked the supporting-supporting performances, such as the tweaky man on the commuter ferry who wanted to blow up the prisoner ferry, and the would-be assassin in the 21-gun salute squad who turned out to be schizophrenic.  Good, interesting performances IMO.