Reply With Quote
:crickets:
Just saw it last night. Didn't feel it even came close to living up to all the hype. Good movie for sure, but nothing to splooge your pants over like many have done here. Had I not been butt ed daily by the overhyped marketing campaign and all the pointless "I found a dark knight trailer with four additional seconds" threads here maybe I would have felt different.
:crickets:
You were overexposed to it and being a non comic book didn't really help either.
agreed 100 mother ing percent. i've already stated so in this forum and ours is not a very popular opinion with everyone eating up everything that gets fed to them. i thought it was a very good movie, but honestly i almost liked batman begins more than this one (ledger did make this movie) the hype was just too much and i left the theater feeling very much the same as you tsa.
I liked the movie. I like Ledger's perfomance more though. The movie itself wasn't all that. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't what tons of people are making it out to be. I was satisfied overall and entertained. I am not dissing the film. Just think some had made too much of it.
Those are the comic book nerds (me being one of them) and they have every right, because:
1) They're nerds
2) The movie depicted batman as close as it was going to get.
Critics/casual viewers seem to have gotten into the Ledger hype a little, but nobody up until then was gathered around the TDK hype (not ledger hype) except for some geeks. Other than it was widely ignored until ledger died.
I know plenty of people who have been and still are hyping this movie, and they are not comic book nerds. I'm not sure if it was the actual marketing plan or a viral campaign that just got bigger than expected, but I think that is what set me up for the small let down.
I thought the movie was good but not the overhyped "best movie in 3 years" movie that critics are making it out to be. I honestly liked Iron Man better...
If dude didn't die this film wouldn't be jack.
Ignorant post.
His performance is brilliant, regardless of his death.
Agree about his performance, but this isn't the I wasn't impressed with Heath Ledger as the Joker thread.
Heath was amazing, the movie wasn't.
I thought Heath was great.
The movie? depends if you saw it in an Imax or not.
I was responding to Brutalis saying that the movie would've been nothing if Ledger hadn't died.
I called him out for making such a stupid statement.
His performance was brilliant, regardless of his death.
And, I think you agree.
i honestly think if it wasnt overhyped as promoted then i probably wouldve enjoyed the film more. im not a cominc book fan so i guess that takes alot of what this movie had to offer away. but strictly from a movie watcher perspective. i wouldnt put this at top 20 best movies ive ever seen. or even best supporting actor role from HL. sure he did a good job but no where near "Great". you could make arguements that Jack Nicholson pulled off a better Joker in his role. HL did a really good job but poor guy got way overhyped.
you could? that's a very far reach, and most people would agree.
Another ignorant post.
Haven't even found the time to go see it yet.
Usually when something is this hyped up, you're bound to get let down.
I loved the film, but think the "greatest of all time" talk is more than a little silly. It was, easily, the best movie I've seen this year. I don't know if that will still be the case in December, though.
The hype surrounding it is ridiculous. And unfortunate. I was intrigued by the early trailers and viral marketing, and would have been geeked out of my mind to see it no matter what because I'm a Batman fan, but the Dark Knight pizza commercials and LCD TV commercials and everything else commercials that I see every five minutes are tiresome.
You can't compare the 2.
Both did a great job, as you have to keep in mind that they were 2 different approaches, so 2 different interpretations
There were too many times that the movie slowed down and had me nearly nodding off only to be snapped back by an action scene. And I'm still pissed that Bruce almost gave up being Batman for that ugly wench.
they were actually the same character with VERY little diffrences.
I've heard complaints that the movie was too long(the 4 movies in one line) and the plot was too confusing/unorganized. Also I have heard the Maggie Ghlyental(sp) is ugly complaint as well. I can't really comment on the 1st two complaints, because I haven't seen the movie yet. But Ghlyental(sp) being ugly is sort of a weak argument. Having superficial hot characters in a movie all the time sort of kill it. Having average looking people in a lead role isn't always bad and I actually hope it is more oftne used (Fillmoe said it best).
Jack's Joker was depcited as clean, cut, bright, and orgainzed. Which is one way the joker has been depicted.
Heath's joker was depicted as shoddy, dark, pyschotic/chaotic, which is another way the joker can be portrayed.
I thought it was settled that it's entertaining but nowhere near the Batman Begins level.
One thing that makes sense is ppl saying the Ledger had an easy role. Everytime you act as a one-dimensional character like the Joker, it's a lot easier. Ask Al Pacino when he played Scarface. ppl who say he will get the Oscar (my coworkers) are clueless
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
