But I also can’t say I like most English people that much , and I am English. I like my English family (I live in the US right now) but I jsut find most of the population to be, well, uncouth as well.

But god, when I saw it, it was just so incredibly ‘bland’! The story elements are so mediocre and have been seen before a thousand times. The only thing I liked here was Heath Ledger, and I hate that arsehole, Christian Bale.

By the way, one thing that irked me about this movie was that scene where the Joker films himself torturing the cop, and then the News Agency PUTS IT ON PUBLIC TELEVISION. Are you kidding me? That would never happen. It was just so amateurish and… well, a generally boring film, I hate the fact that I can’t see what everyone sees in this film. I would have preferred it if it went the whole ‘Sin City’, Noir-ish look and feel instead.

I liked your review, especially the criticism of the whole Chicago cinematography look, but I feel there are other factors about this film that are seriously lacking and require severe critical analysis.

Thank you for your reply! I’m in the middle of a move and about to go on a two week trip as well, so I don’t have time to reply extensively, but I just wanted to let you know that I had a chance to read your comments. I appreciate your contribution, and I value your opinion. Thank you for taking the time to share you well argued analysis of the film!

firstly the comment in regard for disliking Australians for the accent they have. im sorry but that is one of the most stereotypical and prejudice views that i have heard in a very long time. that is no grounds for disliking a single person let alone an entire nation.

ok for the points i disagree with: heath ledger as the joker. you did praise his performance and i agree with that. in terms of acting it was the best performance by an actor in the entire film. the tongue gestures were made out of ledger’s habit of feeling the prosthetics attached to his face and he felt it gave the character more of a menacing and psychotic appearance. i agree with that. his approach was not one of a somewhat ‘comic’ approach but one that was designed to instil fear and show his psychotic nature. i do have another point on this which will be in the summary at the end.

as stated the reason for the ‘bat cave’ being what it was due to wayne manor being totally destroyed by a fire in batman begins. the bland nature could be as a result of several factors. one being that ass only a temporary measure go to the effort of fully equipping it to a certain level. secondly, all be it behind closed doors the possibility that it could be discovered was present. with his equipment o display and items that no ‘ordinary’ businessman would possess would only blow his cover as batman.

this in turn brings me onto the point regarding his voice. the concept in my opinion is to not only help conceal his identity but also to aid in the fear factor of batman. it sounds more menacing to opponents then simply a deeper voice.

the tumbler is a full sized and fully operational vehicle. (the picture in your post was taken from when in was the pace car of a NASCAR face I believe). the majority of, if not all the stunts that involved the tumbler were live action sequences with little to no special effects. the batpod is also a fully operational vehicle and again most if not all stunts were live action sequences.

as for not wanting to get on a boat loaded with felons: it is said that the greatest enemy of mankind is fear itself. the prospect of something happening however small is often enough to dissuade people from doing things. in this case the fear of x amount of felons on a boat with limited guards.

you retracted point 7 and i agree with that. an exact situation of the same circumstances has not existed and as such we will not know the actions that people will take.

as for the coin in my personal opinion it is not overused. yes it depicts the duality of himself and mankind as a whole but as he says the only fair option is through simple chance. this has become his belief and so is the basis of his actions.

i believe you as other have said, if not i assume you grew up with the comics and the TV series, which in my opinion is the reason for the dislike of the film and the opinions you hold. these were done in a particular way and it is what you are accustomed to. the different approach to the film does not conform to this and so you do not like it. this is what i was alluding to in my evaluation of the joker and the point i said i was going to make. because his performance and the way in which the character is portrayed does not conform to what you are used to it is something you do not like. when beginning the project as a whole it was said that they would obey the ‘traditional’ portrayals and that a darker approach was going to be pursued.

a point was made about not needing the change in the batsuit to be explained. in my opinion more questions would have been asked had it not been. the usual questions being: when/how/why was it changed etc.
continuing the suit topic: in combat (which batman does) there is always a compromise between trade offs. in the BB there was superior protection at the expense of mobility reducing his combat effectiveness. im sure the majority of people would rather have an increase in mobility that allowed for more combat capabilities and options at the expense of protection. protection that the added mobility might negate. it would make no sense in my opinion to not exploit any advantage that could be gained. soulpt’s opinions are influenced by what i stated above, because it does not conform to what they are used to it is wrong and so a feeling of dislike occurs. also reflected in his opinion of the tumbler.

as for the remaining points i personally did not see them as an issue and was able to overlook them.

my bad points in the film were these: performances by the actors in certain occasions were a bit…. flat. most notably was christian bail and michael caines scene following the death of rachel. and i agree that the love triangle was a bit… well i agree totally with your point so i wont restate it. however i did find bruce running off with the entire ballet cast amusing as well as it being something that people do, sabotaging the efforts of others to get the person they love.

the good points: the performance by heath ledger and his portrayal of the joker. the sadistic and psychotic approach and the way in which it created terror amongst people. his ruthlessness and disregard for human life was evident and the manners by which he achieved this were imaginative and dark in nature. notably making the pencil ‘disappear’. that is one of the best methods i have seen in film and television on how to kill someone. in my opinion he one of the best villains i have seen and he alone would be enough to entice audiences into viewing and enjoying the performance, being able to overlook its faults.

as well as that were the moments where personal loss would ensure overall gain i enjoyed. Dent coming out as batman and the end in which bruce sacrificed his status to ensure Dents remained and that good prevailed in gotham. however i will admit that is my feeling from any film not just this one.

i guess in the end it all comes down to the reason why people watch movies in the first place. the action, the love, the iconic figure to name but a few. my personal reason is to escape from reality. allowing me to forget the world i currently live. to escape peoples opinions, the pressure of life, any problems that may be going through, to allow my imagination to wander and for 2 hours to say ‘what if…’ and in that regards this film accomplished this in my opinion and will continue to do so. but i respect your opinion on the film as i do everyone else’s as long as it can be supported with reason as i hope i have done.

scott

Just arrived home from a 10 day trip to Argentina, to discovered that our petsitters NEVER SHOWED UP!!

TEN goddamn days!!!

They had even confirmed in writing which days/dates they were to come over!

And this company, Guardian Pet Sitters LLC, is even a licensed/bonded company whose owners are board members of NAPPS (National Assoc. of Prof. Pet Sitters). What the hell!

I called them, and the guy said he does remember the email and dates, but has no idea why they didn’t end up on the schedule. He was very sorry, blah blah. I told him we’re going to make a claim against their insurance or bond or something, we’re not sure yet what action to take.

Thank god our babies are okay, but not thanks to them! After this whole deal with Amanda, as described above, I’ve been very paranoid about petsitters, so I started leaving huge quantities of food and water out, so they had just enough for the whole ten days. (I also leave the bags out, so they could scratch them open in an emergency)

The litter box was nothing but a huge pile of cat crap, I’m amazed they didn’t start peeing on the carpet (or maybe we just haven’t discovered it yet).

Un-fucking-believable though. Licensed professionals, confirmed in writing, just DON’T SHOW UP for TEN days!!

I’m done with petsitters, I’m paying friends from now on to come over and take care of our babies.