$66mm dark knight BO

[sterlingcomics]

I also think Heath did a fantastic job. IMO he dethroned Jack Nicholson as the ultimate Joker on film which I did not think possible.

 

I'm taking the stand that the two movies, although they featured the same characters, both had a different vision and a different execution...and gladly stand proudly side by side.

 

(I like Heath's version better too).

[VintageComics]

 Originally Posted By: r1970d

I also think Heath did a fantastic job. IMO he dethroned Jack Nicholson as the ultimate Joker on film which I did not think possible.

 

I'm taking the stand that the two movies, although they featured the same characters, both had a different vision and a different execution...and gladly stand proudly side by side.

 

(I like Heath's version better too).

I agree. Both films are great for different reasons. You just can't beat [what-his-face-that-directed..oh yea] Tim Burton for that dry, tight, funny/serious thing he does so well. All his movies have that flavor...even Planet of the Apes...much like you can always recognize a Ridley Scott film....Ridley seems to have a fascination with rain and dream like sequences. Always.

[joecgcmaniac]

 Originally Posted By: aman619

what clues?

 

There were camera angles and pauses used very well, sometimes a second longer focus on a person than there needed to be. I don't want to spoil anything (and my memory is poor so I don't remember mnay details now) but I specifically remember sitting in the theatre the 2nd time around and saying to myself...how did I miss that the first time around? The movie was very dense (or condensed) as far as action and story went.

 

I also think Heath did a fantastic job. IMO he dethroned Jack Nicholson as the ultimate Joker on film which I did not think possible.

 

R.

Imagine if Nicholson had been able to do a dark, sadistic Joker in '89 hmREDRUM :eek:

[Aman619]

 Originally Posted By: aman619

what clues?

 

There were camera angles and pauses used very well, sometimes a second longer focus on a person than there needed to be. I don't want to spoil anything (and my memory is poor so I don't remember mnay details now) but I specifically remember sitting in the theatre the 2nd time around and saying to myself...how did I miss that the first time around? The movie was very dense (or condensed) as far as action and story went.

 

I also think Heath did a fantastic job. IMO he dethroned Jack Nicholson as the ultimate Joker on film which I did not think possible.

 

R.

oh you mean foreshadowing.. yeah, pretty often, the second time thru your eye notices where the camera goes closely and catches the editing that calls attention to people or faces that you dont notice the first time cause you are digesting the dialogue or plot and miss it.The classic movie scene about this stuff was in Albert Brooks' Modern Romance, where he and the director argue about including a smirk by a henchman or not.

[VintageComics]

(thumbs u

[Aman619]

 Originally Posted By: herc2000

Oh yeah, it did not even feel like it was Gotham to me, just seemed like any regular city?

 

Yeah...CHICAGO. Gotham's details were not there...but I didn't come to see GOTHAM. The reality based setting was ok in my book. It added to the sell.

Chicago... Toronto... Gotham. in the real world, all big cities look alike with plenty of glass towers and a few "artistic" landmarks. Its true that RETURNS bothered to create a unique Gotham like the comics, all dark angles and pointy spires and gothic details... but this one didnt bother me. Gotham a huge metropolis... it would never be built al in one style. I think this kind of police procedural Batman flick works well in a real city environment w/o all the gothic touches in previous films.