I'm not telepathic, but I do believe he liked it.
I kinda have a little complaint about the movie. Some fans didn't like how in Batman Begins they didn't really show the "super sleuth" detective aspect of the character. So in this movie, they tried to play up the detective stuff, but must of it doesn't even make any logical sense. I mean, why is there dna from FUTURE victoms on the evidence, or how the heck did they get an address from a bullet in the wall? How did they find the place where they find the bullet, how did they know to go there, of all places? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
To answer the previous poster's questions. Some mild spoilers here:Gordon notes that the Joker had access to at least the commissioner's office, allowing him to get DNA from there, probably from the bottle. Considering the rampant corruption in the film it's not hard to believe he could get access to the residences or possessions of the others and acquire some type of DNA from the other two as well.On the bullet match: So Batman takes the bullet from the wall. He fires several test bullets in the temporary Batcave for comparison so he can identify the type of bullet. Once the bullet and its unique shape is identified, Fox can reconstruct it using scanners at Wayne Enterprises and assemble it in the right order. This reveals the fingerprint, which might belong to one of the Joker's gang from when that gang member was loading the bullet into the clip. That or it's from some poor random schlub who ran afoul of the Joker, who then planted his fingerprint on the bullet for someone to find. The key thing is that this unknown guy had an address overlooking the funeral march route and the Joker used his fingerprint to lure Batman or some random cop, whoever found the clue, to the spot and possibly get shot. This served as one of his little jokes and gave him the proper distraction to pull his assassination attempt.
You know...This is probably the best movie I'll see all year, and the Joker is probably my preferred version of the character... but I like the first one more. There, I said it.
Yeah, you are the only one who didn't like his bat suit, and you forgot to mention what a mess the Dark Knight script is.
amazing film, BUT I totally agree with the batsuit criticism...My one other problem with this film was the beginning. Was that confusing scarecrow cameo really necessary?
I really liked the first one. Probably a toss up between which I liked better, but I don't think I liked this one as much as Bob. Ledger is amazing, but he got all the good lines. Bale really doesn't get a chance to shine in this one (thanks entirely to the writers). I do not think Ledger will get a posthumous. I also would have left at least 20 minutes of this movie on the editing floor. My main complaint with "Dark Knight" is that it is too damn long.~Heidiwww.HeidiTown.com
I didn't like how the climax didn't really have any of the main characters in it. Yeah, the whole "prisoners' dilemma" crisis with the two boatloads of people was thought-provoking (at least for people not familar with the well-worn philosophical dilemma), but it distracted from the rest of the movie. It's a Batman movie for pete's sake; I want to see Batman, the Joker, and Two Face, dammit! I don't want to see minute and minutes of footage of a bunch of nobodies having a moral dilemma on a boat!And yeah, Bale's Batman voice was just RIDICULOUS. REALLY distracting. Waaay too over-the-top. He should have sounded like Rorscach from Watchmen, but instead it sounded as if he had throat cancer and could barely talk.
Post a Comment