Your Dark Secrets of Film

agentsands77

New member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Which comics? Now you’ve got to be joking here.
Nope, I'm not. In superficial elements, yes, Ledger's Joker is extremely different. But as far as the spirit of the character goes, I see a lot more of THE KILLING JOKE, ARKHAM ASYLUM, BATMAN #1, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS in Ledger's Joker than I do in Jack's.

MaxPhactor23 said:
Apparently bleached skin, hair, and lips were too unrealistic for Nolan…
Maybe, maybe not. There is something the make-up brings on its own that I find quite interesting. It's not comic-origin faithful, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few comics pick up on it.

MaxPhactor23 said:
He even once tried to patent fish in one of my all-time favorite stories! And it's dark, it's very dark!
I've read "The Laughing Fish" (I'm very familiar with Batman comics across the board), but I'd never call it "very dark." It's generally pretty lighthearted in its own way.

MaxPhactor23 said:
How he twists and perverts something humorous into something inhuman and oftentimes gruesomely violent. Therein lies the true mania and horror. The humor is crucial to the character.
I think the humor that's crucial to the character is less his use of gags and goofy things to kill, and more his own personal mirth at destruction. It's his delight in murder and mayhem that makes me smile.

But it's not Ledger's Joker is devoid of the gag impulse. Haven't you read about the pencil trick? (y)

MaxPhactor23 said:
Do you at least get what I'm trying to say?
I entirely understand how much of a departure Ledger's Joker is from the traditional, iconic version of the character. But I don't think that different = bad, given that the Joker's hit a plateau in recent years. I'm more interested in seeing the character evolve.

And it's quite clear that this has already begun to influence the comics. There was BATMAN #663 (which was retconned out, I believe, but is still a very interesting issue nonetheless), the BATMAN: CONFIDENTIAL Joker origin, and now we have the much-anticipated Brian Azzarello/Lee Bermejo Joker comic.

MaxPhactor23 said:
I just grow so tired of the fan boy praise of Heath and sudden fan boy bashing of Jack, especially when I personally see more of the "real" Joker in Burtons.
Well, you can hardly blame folks for finding Ledger's Joker more compelling. I do myself. With Ledger's Joker (judging from trailers and clips), I really feel like I'm looking at anarchy incarnate, a guy who sees life as a sick twisted joke. He haunts me more than any version of the Joker so far.

And I have to say, Jack's Joker has never done much for me. I always thought it was a lazy performance. For that style of Joker, I've always preferred Hammill's Joker on the animated series.
 

agentsands77

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
That said, Solace looks to have the intelligence of Casino Royale with the action set pieces of Brosnan Bond.
Let's hope not. Brosnan's era had the worst action set-pieces of the entire franchise. Lazy, lazy stuff.
 

bonoferox

Active member
Bored to tears with the Godfather, never plan on seeing the sequels.

Hated Napoleon Dynamite the first time I saw it, hate it now.

Thought Scarface was the most overrated piece of sh!# I've ever seen.

Love the heck out of Jame Cameron's Titanic (aside from parts of the romance sub-plot)

Think Rainn Wilson is one of the worst comedy actors working today
 

Niteshade007

New member
I have never seen a Kubrick film. There, I said it. To be honest, I don't really have any desire to either.

I like the style of both Batman Begins and Casino Royale, but I don't love either one.

I thought Begins got off to a slow start. I never cared to learn how Batman got to be so cool, although I love the flashbacks of him in Gotham. The second half, where Batman is fighting villain in Gotham is considerably better, although, again, I don't love it.

Casino Royale has a great sense of style. I thought it was perfect for a Bond movie, and just the jump start the series needed. However, I found the villain to be boring. The inhaler bugged me the most. I thought the testicle torture scene was awkward and didn't fit in with the rest of the movie. I find Vesper attractive, but not the most attractive Bond girl.
Also, I found her death completely unnecessary. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what happened: Vesper made a deal to save her and Bond's life, she would give them the money Bond had gotten back for the government. That makes sense. There is also something about her boyfriend being held captive or for ransom or whatever. So, as I saw it, Vesper was a good person, just in over her head. Wouldn't it make sense, then, for her to have gone to MI6 and told them about the deal she made. At the very least she could have told Bond. She truly loved him, so why not? It wasn't like she was taking the money for herself to screw him over. She could have easily set a trap for the people she made a deal with and saved her life. It was just stupid, in my opinion.
 

agentsands77

New member
Niteshade007 said:
I thought Begins got off to a slow start. I never cared to learn how Batman got to be so cool, although I love the flashbacks of him in Gotham. The second half, where Batman is fighting villain in Gotham is considerably better, although, again, I don't love it.
Really? Interesting reaction. Usually most folks claim it's the first half that's the best (and I'm in that camp as well... as much as I'm a Batman fan, I think the second half gets far too predictable).

Niteshade007 said:
Also, I found her death completely unnecessary. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what happened: Vesper made a deal to save her and Bond's life, she would give them the money Bond had gotten back for the government. That makes sense. There is also something about her boyfriend being held captive or for ransom or whatever. So, as I saw it, Vesper was a good person, just in over her head. Wouldn't it make sense, then, for her to have gone to MI6 and told them about the deal she made. At the very least she could have told Bond. She truly loved him, so why not? It wasn't like she was taking the money for herself to screw him over. She could have easily set a trap for the people she made a deal with and saved her life. It was just stupid, in my opinion.
If Vesper had told Bond about her role in the whole sequence of events, their relationship would be over. He'd never trust her again. I think that was her main motivation in trying to work this out on her own (and I think she started to convince herself of that out of false hope, as well... that she could work it out). There was no real way that things would work out for the two of them.
 

graz

New member
Niteshade007 said:
I
I like the style of both Batman Begins and Casino Royale, but I don't love either one.

I thought Begins got off to a slow start. I never cared to learn how Batman got to be so cool, although I love the flashbacks of him in Gotham. The second half, where Batman is fighting villain in Gotham is considerably better, although, again, I don't love it.

I agree with you about Batman. I got extremely bored during the bits with Liam Neeson. The film kind of lost me a bit early on and I never quite got into it.

Can't agree with you on Vesper and Casino Royale though - I love that movie! :whip:
 

Eric Solo

Member
When I was 13 years old I had seen Back to the Future so many times I could actually perform the movie (including sound effects and music) from beginning to end. I actually did this in the car on the way to Disney World once. My dad was stunned, amazed and scared.

Never seen Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind.

I loved Napoleon Dynamite and Rainn Wilson ROCKS.

I like Tom Cruise. It amazes me that a guy who brought so much joy and entertainment to so many people could be so mistreated by those people. Give the guy a break. I mean yeah, he does some weird stuff, but we all do weird stuff. He just does it on camera and millions of people get to see it.
 
Last edited:

Agent Z

Active member
Eric Solo said:
I like Tom Cruise. It amazes me that a guy who brought so much joy and entertainment to so many people could be so mistreated by those people. Give the guy a break. I mean yeah, he does some weird stuff, but we all do weird stuff. He just does it on camera and millions of people get to see it.

Tom Cruise is a hell of an actor. I only wish he wasn't Tom Cruise, you know? He is such an iconic presence, that it gets more and more difficult to accept him as certain characters.

I know the character is a samurai, but it's tough to look up at the screen and not see Tom Cruise playing a samurai.

Not his fault, just one of those things....


Ok, since I started to derail the thread, it's only fitting that I contribute to get it back...

My dark secret is that I had a chance to go to The Rocky Horror Picture Show on a date back in high school.....God, this is way back....let's just say late 80's guys...

At any rate, the girl who asked me, Crystal, just had my proverbial number. I could barely even talk around her. Shy city.

She asked me a couple of hours before she was set to go to the show. She was in full costume, totally vamped out. I just muttered some crap excuse and chickened out. So, I didn't go and, to this day, I have never seen the film.

I know, I know...it's out on dvd, but I feel like I have to see it for the first time at a midnight showing.

If I just cave-in and watch it at home, Crystal, wherever she is, will be laughing at me, shaking her head. :p
 
Last edited:

Crack that whip

New member
Niteshade007 said:
Really? Why do you say that?

Oh, I'd just been thinking you were heavily into film and film history and lore and all, and it seemed very strange that, first of all, you wouldn't have seen the original Star Wars movies - aside from them being classics, or at least of tremendous cultural impact and therefore important in the history of film, they're also massively popular and everyone's seen them, let alone people who are particularly into movies, to say nothing of people who are sufficiently big enough fans of another Lucas series to register for and post at a forum devoted to it (there are a lot of connections between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, after all, and I'd expect a lot of overlap between their two fan camps). I wouldn't have been as surprised if, say, you said you didn't particularly care for them or whatever, but I was just really taken aback that you hadn't seen them at all until recently.

The silent films thing doesn't have as much behind it, but it still struck me as just really unexpected from you; for some reason I'd had this mental image of you having this huge library of cinematic antiquities on DVD, going back to these ancient shorts from like 1898 or something, which you watched religiously. I guess not...

:: shrugs ::
 

G-Man

New member
Never seen Citizen Kane or Casablanca. I've tried to watch both but couldn't.

I hated Empire Strikes Back when I first saw it as an 8 year old. And I still do.

Casino Royale... meh.

Magnolia... nope.

It's a Wonderful Life... aint wonderful.

Napoleon Dynamite... pile o' sh*te.



Now the big one, I absolutely love Underworld... :eek:
 

shazamtd

New member
I found this old thread and decided to reply.

- I think John Wayne is one of the most overrated movie stars of all time. (Although I do like Rio Bravo.)

- I refuse to ever watch Poltergeist again because it scared me so bad when I was a kid.

- I saw Jurassic Park only one time in the theater back in '93 and to this day I still want my money back.

- I think Escape from New York is a great western. What I mean by that is the plot elements in the film come right out of a western.

- I prefer the special editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy to the original theatrical versions even though I grew up with the originals.

- I think Margot Kidder was miscast in Superman (1978). After seeing the screen tests on the dvd I would've cast Anne Archer.
 

phantom train

New member
First of all, Excellent thread. Here goes:

- I did not like Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade at all. Though S. Connery is a good actor, I didn't think he belonged in an IJ film; long after the film came out, I remember reading that Spielberg even mentioned something like he felt Connery would "unbalance" the film, and IMHO that's exactly what happened.

- I really and truly enjoyed IJ: KOTCS. I was waiting for the film long before it came out, and when I finally saw this in the theatre it didn't dissapoint. Great story, action, and effects - I felt it really fit into the IJ mythology, and I also enjoyed the fact that it mentioned the YIJC (the Pancho Villa comment).

- I've been a huge SW fan ever since I was a kid. And, even though I'm old enough to have seen the original films in the theatre, I liked all three SW: Special Editions far more than the originals; seeing them in theatres from January - March of '97 was one of the greatest cinematic experiences of my life. Not only did I think it was excellent that most of the effects were improved, but the picture quality was also cleaned up and the prints looked superb. The only issue I had was when Greedo shot first in A New Hope...

- I liked Star Wars: Episode 1 (The Phantom Menace)! Though I didn't think it was better than the OT (Original Trilogy), in retrospect I really enjoyed it more than Episodes 2 & 3. And, yes, I also thought Jar Jar was funny - I felt he was the comic relief that was needed in an otherwise dark film. Also, the media hype and attention the franchise got in the 6+ months prior to the release of the film was great, as was most of the merchandise associated with the movie.

- Though I really enjoyed Batman Begins, I am not a at all a fan of Batman: The Dark Knight. Though the film was great from a technical/action standpoint, I didn't like how they changed the origin of the Joker (well, there was really no origin). Having his face scarred and just covered with face-paint made him just another psycho bad guy, instead of the iconic villain from the comics. I enjoyed the original Batman film (1989) much more, since it was much truer to the source material in having the Joker's face/hair be the result of the chemicals he fell into.

- Though I liked all three LOTR films overall, I thought the J.R.R. Tolkien books were far superior to the movies. First of all, I didn't like the way the Ring-wraiths were portrayed in the movies; I felt like they should have looked more like the Ring-Wraiths in the animated LOTR films from the late '70's/early '80's (i.e., with glowing red eyes). But, that's just me.

- I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books after having read the first book back in 2000. However, I am not a fan of the films. I stopped watching them after the third one (which was especially poor, IMHO).

- I think Aliens is not only the best film in the Alien film franchise, but one of the best sci-fi films of all time, period.

- I liked Predator 2 more than the first Predator film. I felt that the Predators were more interesting in an urban environment than in the jungle.

- I truly loathed SR. I had extremely high hopes for the film since I was big fan of the comics and the CR films from the '70's/'80's, but SR was just a bad movie, period. Having Lex Luthor be the main villain would have been alright, but I didn't like his trying to build his own "island" - ridiculous idea. The only good thing about the movie was the casting of BR, who was spot-on in looking like Clark Kent/Superman from the comics - but, that wasn't enough to save the film.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
phantom train said:
First of all, Excellent thread. Here goes:

- I did not like Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade at all. Though S. Connery is a good actor, I didn't think he belonged in an IJ film; long after the film came out, I remember reading that Spielberg even mentioned something like he felt Connery would "unbalance" the film, and IMHO that's exactly what happened.

- I really and truly enjoyed IJ: KOTCS. I was waiting for the film long before it came out, and when I finally saw this in the theatre it didn't dissapoint. Great story, action, and effects - I felt it really fit into the IJ mythology, and I also enjoyed the fact that it mentioned the YIJC (the Pancho Villa comment).

- I've been a huge SW fan ever since I was a kid. And, even though I'm old enough to have seen the original films in the theatre, I liked all three SW: Special Editions far more than the originals; seeing them in theatres from January - March of '97 was one of the greatest cinematic experiences of my life. Not only did I think it was excellent that most of the effects were improved, but the picture quality was also cleaned up and the prints looked superb. The only issue I had was when Greedo shot first in A New Hope...

- I liked Star Wars: Episode 1 (The Phantom Menace)! Though I didn't think it was better than the OT (Original Trilogy), in retrospect I really enjoyed it more than Episodes 2 & 3. And, yes, I also thought Jar Jar was funny - I felt he was the comic relief that was needed in an otherwise dark film. Also, the media hype and attention the franchise got in the 6+ months prior to the release of the film was great, as was most of the merchandise associated with the movie.

- Though I really enjoyed Batman Begins, I am not a at all a fan of Batman: The Dark Knight. Though the film was great from a technical/action standpoint, I didn't like how they changed the origin of the Joker (well, there was really no origin). Having his face scarred and just covered with face-paint made him just another psycho bad guy, instead of the iconic villain from the comics. I enjoyed the original Batman film (1989) much more, since it was much truer to the source material in having the Joker's face/hair be the result of the chemicals he fell into.

- Though I liked all three LOTR films overall, I thought the J.R.R. Tolkien books were far superior to the movies. First of all, I didn't like the way the Ring-wraiths were portrayed in the movies; I felt like they should have looked more like the Ring-Wraiths in the animated LOTR films from the late '70's/early '80's (i.e., with glowing red eyes). But, that's just me.

- I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books after having read the first book back in 2000. However, I am not a fan of the films. I stopped watching them after the third one (which was especially poor, IMHO).

phantom, these are all truly dark and dirty secrets. It's just as well that heretics are no longer burnt at the stake! ;)

Two movies that get a lot of stick, but which I enjoyed were Alien Resurrection and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

And I like the Saw series of movies, even though there is no sane or rational explanation for doing so.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
phantom train said:
- Though I really enjoyed Batman Begins, I am not a at all a fan of Batman: The Dark Knight. Though the film was great from a technical/action standpoint, I didn't like how they changed the origin of the Joker (well, there was really no origin). Having his face scarred and just covered with face-paint made him just another psycho bad guy, instead of the iconic villain from the comics. I enjoyed the original Batman film (1989) much more, since it was much truer to the source material in having the Joker's face/hair be the result of the chemicals he fell into.
There were multiple origin stories given by the Joker in The Dark Knight; the point was that the audience didn't know which one was true, and the Joker was more mysterious for it. I was under the impression that Nolan wanted his Joker more true to the early comics (in some sense), so he didn't give an origin story: the Joker just burst onto the screen. Besides, in the comics, there is no definitive origin story; in The Killing Joke, the Joker even says of his origins, "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!"

phantom train said:
Though I liked all three LOTR films overall, I thought the J.R.R. Tolkien books were far superior to the movies.
I liked them all, but I've only seen them once. I don't think I could watch them again.
 

phantom train

New member
Yeah, I know that the "origin" of the Joker was intentionally unclear in TDK - the problem I had with any/all of these various "origins" was that not only did I find them bland/unintersting, but they were all so different from the original source material taken from the original Batman comics from the 1940's - in one of those original comics, the guy who became the Joker fell into a vat of chemicals, causing his skin/hair to change to white & green - And, that's what I liked about the 1989 Batman film - they kept at least that part of the origin the same. Granted, the 1989 film also made Jack Napier the same man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents, and that was different from the comics (in the 1970's/early '80's Batman comics this criminal's name was Joe Chill, I believe).

In any case, having the Joker in TDK be just a nutjob with face-paint was fairly unimaginative, and this marred the film for me. Plus, HL's acting in the film was overrated -as someone else mentioned on this thread, it's possible that one of the reasons his performance received so many accolades wasn't necessarily because it was exceptionally great, but because he had passed on earlier that year (2008) and people felt like he should be praised since the Joker was his last role (actually, I think he was also in a Terry Gilliam movie that came out after TDK, but TDK came out closer to his death and got a lot more attention/press than the Gilliam film).

Another problem that I had with TDK was the handling of Two-Face - this character was almost thrown into the movie as a side-note, without any real plan - killing him off at the end didn't seem to make much difference to the film one way or that other.

That all being said, the Batmobile/motorcycle sequences in TDK were amazing, and were probably the best part(s) of the film.
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
I can't help but feel that you completely misunderstood the film and that you think you know a lot more about the Batman mythos than either of us actually do...
phantom train said:
Yeah, I know that the "origin" of the Joker was intentionally unclear in TDK - the problem I had with any/all of these various "origins" was that not only did I find them bland/unintersting, but they were all so different from the original source material taken from the original Batman comics from the 1940's
In fact, the Joker did not have an origin story until 1951 in Detective Comics #168. That story was the whole Red Hood deal involving chemicals. This origin story has been reinvented several ways, but the 1989 film's origin story did not really resemble the ones in any of the comics that I know of. Like I said before, the Joker of the comics was given many origins over the years, but when he first came onto the scene of the comics, he did not have one. He was a figure of mystery, and this is what Nolan was replicating. When it comes down to it, the 1989 film was less true to the comics.

phantom train said:
In any case, having the Joker in TDK be just a nutjob with face-paint was fairly unimaginative, and this marred the film for me.
Don't you think that the Joker becomes that much more menacing when you realize he's just a terrorist whose insanity is the result of either mental or social factors instead of some chemical? I found this Joker infinitely more frightening, because he is not the result of some freak accident.

Insight into the Joker's twisted mind: "Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the... little emotions. In... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?"

One of various disturbing origins from the film, which may or may not be true:
The Joker: Come here. Hey! Look at me. So I had a wife, beautiful, like you, who tells me I worry too much. Who tells me I ought to smile more. Who gambles and gets in deep with the sharks... Look at me! One day, they carve her face. And we have no money for surgeries. She can't take it. I just want to see her smile again, hm? I just want her to know that I don't care about the scars. So... I stick a razor in my mouth and do this...
[the Joker mimics slicing his mouth open with his tongue]
The Joker: ...to myself. And you know what? She can't stand the sight of me! She leaves. Now I see the funny side. Now I'm always smiling!


And even if HL's acting wasn't par excellence, do you honestly think that Jack Nicholson's performance was one bit better?

phantom train said:
Another problem that I had with TDK was the handling of Two-Face - this character was almost thrown into the movie as a side-note, without any real plan - killing him off at the end didn't seem to make much difference to the film one way or that other.
How many times have you seen the film? He was bent on seeking revenge. He was an ideologue who becomes disillusioned by reality; he tried to be a hero until the Joker's chaos brought him down, leading him to believe that "[t]he world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance."

Batman: What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act! We three!
Two-Face: Then why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?
Batman: It wasn't.
Two-Face: The Joker chose me!
Batman: Because you were the best of us! He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall.
Two-Face: [bitter] And he was right.

Thanks to the Joker, Two-Face turns into the very evil that he worked against, convinced that chance is "fair."

The Joker:...you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!
[still holding the gun, Two-Face pauses and takes out his coin]
Two-Face: [showing the unscarred side] You live.
The Joker: Mm-hmm.
Two-Face: [flips, showing the scarred side] You die.
The Joker: Mmm, now we're talking.

The transformation of Dent is a key part of the story. I don't see how anyone could watch the film and not walk away with that. I mean, did you miss the part at the beginning of the film when they're all eating dinner and Bruce begins to think that maybe Harvey Dent could protect Gotham better?

Harvey Dent: When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't considered an honor, it was considered a public service.
Rachel Dawes: Harvey, the last man who they appointed the Republic was named Caesar and he never gave up his power.
Harvey Dent: Okay, fine: you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
 
Last edited:

kongisking

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
I can't help but feel that you completely misunderstood the film and that you think you know a lot more about the Batman mythos than either of us actually do...

In fact, the Joker did not have an origin story until 1951 in Detective Comics #168. That story was the whole Red Hood deal involving chemicals. This origin story has been reinvented several ways, but the 1989 film's origin story did not really resemble the ones in any of the comics that I know of. Like I said before, the Joker of the comics was given many origins over the years, but when he first came onto the scene of the comics, he did not have one. He was a figure of mystery, and this is what Nolan was replicating. When it comes down to it, the 1989 film was less true to the comics.


Don't you think that the Joker becomes that much more menacing when you realize he's just a terrorist whose insanity is the result of either mental or social factors instead of some chemical? I found this Joker infinitely more frightening, because he is not the result of some freak accident.

Insight into the Joker's twisted mind: "Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the... little emotions. In... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?"

One of various disturbing origins from the film, which may or may not be true:
The Joker: Come here. Hey! Look at me. So I had a wife, beautiful, like you, who tells me I worry too much. Who tells me I ought to smile more. Who gambles and gets in deep with the sharks... Look at me! One day, they carve her face. And we have no money for surgeries. She can't take it. I just want to see her smile again, hm? I just want her to know that I don't care about the scars. So... I stick a razor in my mouth and do this...
[the Joker mimics slicing his mouth open with his tongue]
The Joker: ...to myself. And you know what? She can't stand the sight of me! She leaves. Now I see the funny side. Now I'm always smiling!


And even if HL's acting wasn't par excellence, do you honestly think that Jack Nicholson's performance was one bit better?


How many times have you seen the film? He was bent on seeking revenge. He was an ideologue who becomes disillusioned by reality; he tried to be a hero until the Joker's chaos brought him down, leading him to believe that "[t]he world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance."

Batman: What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act! We three!
Two-Face: Then why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?
Batman: It wasn't.
Two-Face: The Joker chose me!
Batman: Because you were the best of us! He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall.
Two-Face: [bitter] And he was right.

Thanks to the Joker, Two-Face turns into the very evil that he worked against, convinced that chance is "fair."

The Joker:...you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!
[still holding the gun, Two-Face pauses and takes out his coin]
Two-Face: [showing the unscarred side] You live.
The Joker: Mm-hmm.
Two-Face: [flips, showing the scarred side] You die.
The Joker: Mmm, now we're talking.

The transformation of Dent is a key part of the story. I don't see how anyone could watch the film and not walk away with that. I mean, did you miss the part at the beginning of the film when they're all eating dinner and Bruce begins to think that maybe Harvey Dent could protect Gotham better?

Harvey Dent: When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't considered an honor, it was considered a public service.
Rachel Dawes: Harvey, the last man who they appointed the Republic was named Caesar and he never gave up his power.
Harvey Dent: Okay, fine: you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

I agree completely. Virtual high-five, man.

As for one of my Dark Secrets...I love Amy Adams.

Wait, that's no secret! D'oh! :rolleyes:
 
Top