What was amazing about this film was at 2 hr and 25 mins (or so), you do have this feeling of "They could've kept going with this." The movie never goes on way too long, despite its length. One of the quickest 2 hr and 25 mins I can recall.
Oh, the opening scene is awesome. Every action scenes pretty much rocks the house. Especially the tunnel scene; that was incredible.
And yeah, if Heath Ledger doesn't get at the least nominated for an Oscar, something's wrong here. He was amazing. He was truly a psychotic; more so than Jack was. As good as Jack was as The Joker in the original Batman movie, Ledger just takes it to another level. Jack was never scary nor creepy as The Joker (b/c of how over-the-top he played it), but Ledger is scary and creepy. He gets under your skin, at times. He was creepy, yet often hilarious -- especially with how he was reacting to everything when he was destroying things and causing anarchy wherever he went; w/ his usual cackle and other (child-like) reactions of giddiness when he was doing something completely wrong. And there were also plenty of times he gave you that big "What the hell? You got to be kiddin' me!" reaction.
For those who seen it already, you know what I'm talking about...
***SPOILER PARTY***
...I'm thinking off the top of my head of the scenes of him making the pencil disappear early on (that was great!); the scene when he doesn't move when Batman is about to run him over in the motorcycle in this game of "chicken" but Batman does move and dodge Joker; and the scene w/ Joker dressed up as a nurse (WTF?) and then blows the hospital to almost nothing to the point the detonator doesn't do the final charge but he eventually gets it to work and then goes crazy when it finally works.
About Maggie G, she was used namely for all of the emotional scenes. And boy, they did ever work -- it sure worked better than Katie Holmes did as Rachel Dawes. Not that Katie was bad (she was actually good), it's just Maggie is that good (as usual) and just is that much better of an actress.
And I must say, the make-up/special effects on Eckhart after his transformation was awesome. Sure looked a hell of a lot better than what they was done with Harvey Dent (Tommy Lee Jones) in Batman Forever.
Blurring The Line Of Good & Evil
**SPOILER**
Oh, and the whole thing w/ the Big Brother and Patriotic Act elements, where Batman has pretty much the entire city on watch looked like something out of Sliver and Minority Report w/ the screen up there and all. It really did blur the line of Batman even more so, at that point. We then saw that Batman was not 100% good, but actually entering shades of gray/evil for the greater good (to stop the menacing Joker).
Ahhhh, the movie was awesome. I could really go on and on about this flick....
I liked it but had too problems that probably only apply to how I always envisioned Batman.
1.) Joker too crazy. I know the Joker is supposed to be a crazy motherfucker and it's probably closer than most of the Jokers I've seen, but at times it almost seemed a little too much. I'll take the homicidal sociopath Joker over the eccentric prankster joker any day, but to be perfectly honest I think he came off as too serious and grim himself whereas in the comics I remember he always thought he was the funniest motherfucker on earth and would have a blast while doing very serious and grim things (from an outside perspective). Here he just seemed to hold it in a bit too much.
2.) Batman not crazy enough. I've always wanted to see this in a movie, and lets face it, the guy is fucking crazy. I kind of thought this would be the chance to see the dark, crazy Batman but again he came off as a bit too noble.
The end result of these two things is it changed what I personally thought made the Batman-Joker dynamic so interesting.
I agree about the Joker seeming too well-put-together rather than being batshit crazy and hysterical. I still enjoyed it though.
About the 2nd point, we do kinda see Batman/Bruce going around moral decisions to get what he wants. One example is how Bruce reacts to Rachel and how he believes she's coming back to him regardless of her relationship with Harvey. The second point is when Batman abuses the system by manipulating cell phones to serve his "need to know."
I'd argue that we've definitely seen a darker side of Batman and that makes him a more unique and dynamic character as oppose to a typical "model hero."
I agree w/ Xessive....
...on Batman doing some things in The Dark Knight that are morally wrong, even if they are for the "right" reasons -- such as trying to get back with Rachel when she's already taken (b/c they really still do love each other)
AND manipulating cellphones to try and spy on everybody to find The Joker (Patriot Act, anyone?).
That's the whole "I'm gonna do a little bit of evil just for the greater good" thing.
If this was D&D, I think Batman might be aligned with Lawful Good. :P
See, that's not really what I mean - it doesn't even scratch the surface. A guy who puts on a suit to circumvent the law and assault shoplifters isn't really all that concerned with civil liberties in the first place. If anything it kind of just shows how they lionized him more by giving in and making the self-destruct code. The 'real' Batman is way to obsessed to do anything like that, that motherfucker would be humping that thing every night while spying on every single person in the city. He wouldn't give up that opportunity because he's very very flawed. Movie Batman is basically comic book Superman - noble to the point of boring. It makes him much much less interesting.
I agree with gpw to a point, but I don't mind it because I think frankly, right now people want a hero. They did lionize the character a bit too much, but at the same time they still achieved a degree of consistency, and while it may still seem a little too clean for the tastes of fans who'd prefer someone darker and more obsessive, they at least didn't make him a pure white pussycat, and they do at least consistently use the opinion of the populace and state that many consider his actions questionable.
So it isn't perfect, but given the overall quality of the film, the great acting, the great direction, art, cinematography, pacing, etc. etc. etc. I'm fully willing to overlook small flaws like that and just be happy that the movie isn't just a comic movie, it's a fucking good one on its own merits. Like I said, I did notice a few flaws with it, but those in no way impacted the feeling I got from it.
Besides, this may just be prelude to a third movie in which Batman's motivations change, and subsequently his degree of obsession/questionable judgment. That's sort of the feeling I got. Who knows what'll happen with Ledger dead, especially since they killed off Two-Face as a villain already (lame!). Still, I can't imagine they're stopping now, and while I can't imagine a third movie being even half as good as the second, I'll look forward to it anyway.
So what happens from the end of the bank robbery to the scene with the scarecrow? I caught the first few minutes of the film from youtube.
While the movie is certainly gripping, with great performances, I was not impressed with the plot. In particular, the behavior of crowds and cops as a group seemed improbable to me in the extreme. Without their credibility, the storyline fails. That marred the experience overall, though I am glad I got to see (most of) the film. The characters themselves were the highlights, though the new Rachel did not impress me. I know Katie Holmes got sucked away by a cult, but they could have recast that part better.
Gordan is waiting with at the floodlight with the Batman symbol on it with Ramirez. Ramirez asks why Batman isn't coming. Gordan says he doesn't always come, hopefully it's because he's busy. It then goes to a scene in the parking garage where there's some sort of deal going on and a bunch of Batman impersonators trying to stop it. The real Batman then comes in and kicks ass. The scarecrow is in that scene. You missed basically nothing.