That’s right. If you want to fucking text, stay at FUCKING home. Really, why do you want to pay eleven bucks to text anyway?
Also, if you think you’re some kind genius Sherlock Holmes because you figured out that Harvey Dent’s two-headed coin, was in fact two-headed, only shortly before it was “revealed”…let me say this, have you really never seen Harvey Dent ever in a Batman comic book…or cartoon…or even (heaven forbid) Batman & Robint (#3) with Val Kilmer? I mean really, it’s not like this was a huge reveal dude, this is completely common knowledge to anyone with the most basic BASIC knowledge of Batman. We pretty much all know know about the god damn two-headed coin, and if for some reason you don’t, the movie didn’t exactly make it not obvious…so please, just keep your brilliant revelations to yourself next time okay? You just end up looking like a super moron when you go, “OH. It’s a two-headed coin…” to your idiot girlfriend in the middle of the theater as if you are letting us all in on a little secret…guess what…we’re all like an hour and a half (or several decades) ahead of you…moron.
[Spoiler Warning]
Okay, on to the actual The Dark Knight “review”. I have to say, I’m going to fully jump on the bandwagon here…this movie was just incredible. I’ve been thinking about it since last night, and it is definitely one of the best action movies I have ever seen, it also may be the best comic book movie ever made – the fanboy in me probably got more excited about X-Men I and X-Men II because I was so attached to those characters as a kid – but this was an even better film. So far, in thinking about the film, I really can’t find a flaw. The performances were all extraordinary (Ledger most especially); the script was tight and well crafted; and the direction was beautiful and effective. It all came together into a perfectly constructed film.
I have one real complaint, and it’s only because as a woman that loves superheroes and especially superheroines, or at least strong female characters in all films superhero or otherwise, I felt a little ripped off. Rachael Dawes is not a bad character, she’s good and strong and full of passion, but in this movie (and the last) she is the typical damsel in distress needing to be rescued, falling from buildings, getting tied up and blown up, getting exposed to ‘fear gas’ whatever…there’s nothing new there. And then the only other female characters are Detective Ramirez (who anyone in the know thought was Detective Renee Montoya until her name was revealed near the end) who turns out to be a low level bad guy here; and Gordon’s wife Barbara (another innocent victim/woman in distress). So not only are the women in this film portrayed pretty poorly, but Nolan had the perfect opportunity to throw us a bone in the film…by at least showing us young Barbara Gordon instead of silly Jimmy Gordon. Who the F cares about Jimmy Gordon, when young Barbara Gordon (just waiting to become BATGIRL!) is right there…just off screen?! It kind of made the movie a cock fest…in the worst possible way, which made me a bit disappointed in Nolan. But he can redem himself by living up to the foreshadowing of a possible Catwoman for the next film…
(below is paraphrased)
Bruce Wayne: “Will it stand up to dogs?”
Lucius Fox: “Rotweillers or Chihauhuas?” [laughter] “It’ll stand up to cats”…
YES! Redeem yourself to the women of the world Nolan and give us a Catwoman worthy of your film. Michelle Pfeiffer was an excellent Catwoman (the only truly good thing going on) in Burton’s 1992 Batman Returns, but Halle Berry’s horrible nightmare performance/movie has erased for the current population, everything that was right about Pfeiffer’s Selina Kyle…we’re dying for a new and improved version as invisioned by you…and now you owe us…
For the record:
The Good: Pretty much every single thing.
The Bad: The role of women in the film.
The Ugly: Not a goddamn frame. It is GORGEOUS.
The Dark Knight – 4.5 Stars.
-
Nice. Maybe I’ll actually watch this one. I’ve heard from many people that the new Joker is much more evil than the old one (Nicholson is the best in my book).
As for texting in movies, I think it’s the generation. I just don’t get it. Sure I text, but I’m not a crackberry addict or anything. Never been diagnosed with TXThumb or anything. No, I believe a phone is a phone. There are certain places you use it and certain places you don’t. The theater is one place you don’t.
And a batarang in the neck would have been worth the 11 bucks just to see that alone.
-
Or a Batgirl: Year One… the comic by Scott Beatty and Chuck Dixon is faultless!
-
TK42ONE: You should definitely check it out – it is really extraordinary.
As for texting…I think she was actually emailing (giant bright blackberry-esque light was the give away) but I always prefer to say “texting”. I would agree with you that it is by and large a generational thing, but this girl had no excuse as she (and her friends) had to be at least 30+…so if I, at 32, know not to text, so should she.
Gweek: A ‘Batgirl: Year One’ would be great…but probably wouldn’t work for Nolan’s current timeline as we’ve established now that Barbara is quite young, so unless we wanted to lose Bale as Batman (no!) or age him (no!) it would probably have to be a separate film/series. Another good reason for a Catwoman now is that we’re currently in need of a new “love interest”
-
1. Welcome back to the autonomous zone of NYC.
2. My thoughts exactly.
3. Care to bandy about Catwoman names? Amy & I were talking about this after the movie. All I could come up with was Kate Beckensale. Evangeline Lily? Don’t know if she has the chops.
4. I just didn’t like Maggie Gyllenhal. It’s not like she can’t act. She just didn’t.
5. Why can’t these fucking kids spell?
-
July 30, 2008 at 9:51 pm
kelly
Drew:
1. Thanks. Hawaii was great, but definitely not home.
2. Great minds and all that.
3. I would say Kate Beckinsale would be a good choice since she looks so great in spandex/vinyl/leather/anything, but when she dons these strange fabrics her acting also seems to take a nose dive. I don’t know that she could really bring the necessary performance. I’ll agree on Evangeline Lily…she could pull of the costume, but I doubt she could handle the performance…these will be huge shoes to fill. Here are my picks, in order of preference (not necessarily in order of likelihood):
A) Angelina Jolie – I know some people hate her, but I continue to think she’s a gorgeous badass that can also act – apparently I’m not the only one and rumor has it she’s made inquiries on the part already:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/07/angelina-jolie.html#comment-123160422
B) This ones a bit out in left field but – Cate Blanchett – I know she may be considered little old for the role but she’s an amazing gorgeous actress that could totally handle the roll…and she looks cat like to me…especially in Notes On A Scandal.
C) She’s a bit short for the role – but Natalie Portman could probably rock this part – just hike her up on some platform heels…
D) and bringing up the rear…Charlize Theron not my favorite actress, but she could definitely handle the part and the looks would be no problem.
4. As for Maggie Gyllenhal…I LOVE her. Just not in this film. I hate to admit that I have been so well conditioned by hollywood/society, but she just didn’t have a glamourous/beautiful enough look to me to work for this part (I didn’t like Katie Holmes in the role either I should say). She was definitely, sadly, the weak link in the film both in fitting the part and in delivering in the performance arena (not that it mattered to the overall power of the film).
5. I don’t know which kids you’re referring to, but I wholeheartedly agree regardless.
Comments are now closed.
5 comments