Regarding the possible ambiguity of Two-Faces’s death. I think it was scripted and filmed with him dead. However, when Ledger died, they were still in post-production. Nolan then made edits with available footage to leave open the possiblity that Dent survived, to keep that option open.
That’s my theory, anyway.
Other than what JSexton said about needing a “real” threat, I’m pretty sure that the Gordon’s child in The Long Halloween is a boy named James. I’m also pretty sure that Nolan used The Long Halloween as part of the inspiration for his Batmaniverse. I have no doubt someone with more perfect information on the subject will be along soon.
Ebert just corrected his error in his July 31 Movie Answer Man:
Q. In your review for “The Dark Knight,” you say that the Joker is a product of his father’s poor treatment, but that’s just one story he uses to explain his scars. Another is that he did it for his wife, and Batman interrupts before he offers a – most likely – different story. I think the point was that he doesn’t have a cause. Who’s wrong here?
Samy Amanatullah, San Diego
A. *I am. I should have mentioned all of his dubious stories, instead of sampling. *
We just got back from seeing it. I didn’t even think I would see it before it came out on DVD, but the SO suddenly got the urge.
I was bored. Was Batman even in it? Oh yeah, the stupid looking guy in the stupid mask with the stupid voice. I think that was the Batguy.
Everyone talks about Heath Ledger. I have to agree, he made the movie.
The rest was dull and didn’t appear to be going anywhere.
We were also pleased the boring chick died, whatever her name was.
In Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One Gordon and his wife had their first child who was a little boy named James. I don’t know if that’s the first time this child James appeared nor do I know what eventually became of him but he wasn’t an invention of Nolan.
There’s the Huntress.
Marc
I was struck by a few visual parallels between the hero and the villain, especially where the director’s composition really seemed to emphasize that the two characters were two sides of the same coin.
(1) The Hong Kong hostage/kidnapping was visually very similar to the penthouse party hostage/defenestration – for some reason I remember the camera in the Batman scene moving clockwise, and the camera in the Joker scene moving counterclockwise. Batman’s scene is dark and the Joker’s is shot with lots of light – not sure if this symbolizes anything. The two are also morally equivalent: kidnapping Lai to get to the mob, and kidnapping Rachel to get to Dent.
(2) Both Bruce and the Joker say “Where is Harvey Dent?” to a packed and silent room upon entering the party.
(3) The Joker’s pencil trick is echoed later on in Batman’s surprise appearance in the holding cell. Obviously the Joker’s version of the trick is fatal and Batman’s is not. Both acts are completely out-of-bounds: the Joker uses the gesture to murder, and Batman, who is “good”, uses it as the beginning of an enhanced interrogation. Both rooms are dimly lit - again, not sure if this means anything.
(4) Both the Joker and the Batman walk/drive away from their initial action scenes alone, having left their supposed allies behind in disgust. In both scenes, the protagonist gains an advantage from the fact that his allies look just like him, but that he is something more than his clothes and a mask. Batman has disabled everyone, “friend” and foe alike, whereas the Joker has left his adversaries wounded and his allies dead. Batman’s action sequence takes place at night, and the Joker’s takes place during broad daylight. The Joker’s “crime” was attacking a mob bank – so technically both he and Batman are cleaning up the city… Side note: did anyone find it jarring and a little worrisome that the initial look at Gotham was a bright sunny day?
I’m sure I’m missing more of these moments, but I think some of the simple comparisons would also be trite (e.g. “neither one is comfortable in a boardroom”).
I thought that was part of the point. Batman started to clean up Gotham so it looked “brighter.”
Legally, how does the kidnapping of Lao hold up? I’m pretty sure that in real life, you cant just go kidnap someone you want to extradite, right?
Also from Ebert:
Then he better be prepared to be astonished, because I’d say that while Ledger is a shoo-in for a nod and Nolan has an outside chance for Director (plus the expected craft/“technical” nods the film’s likely to receive), DK is an extreme-longshot for a Best Picture nomination.
Ask the Israelis about that one.
What kidnapping? Lao was just sitting on the steps of the police department. So what if he doesn’t remember how he got there. 
Federal (hell, even state and local) are not supposed to charge into another country to extradite a suspect or fugitive. It was probably more common beforehand, but it has happened, even at the federal level, even with federal authorization. It all depends on what treaties are in place. I recall studying cases in international law where Mexico and Nicaragua both sued the US at the ICJ. The US didn’t even bother to show up. In both cases, US federal law enforcement agencies both went into the respective countries and simply took who they were looking for. The US didn’t even bother to shop up to the ICJ.
I am unaware of local statutes that prevents a suspect from being prosecuted because he was simply extradited from a foreign jurisdiction. However, there a many statutes that prevent a foreigner from extraditing someone from the US.
Two things I’d have wanted to have clarified (and hopefully they will be on the DVD). What happened to all the party people after Batman jumped out the window? Did the Joker just leave?
Second, at the end when the cops are at the warehouse where Batman, Two-Face, and Gordon’s family are. what were they told later? Batman kidnapped Gordon’s family?
And for my own curiosity: does Bruce really sleep around that much? He must, or the story would get out.
I didn’t catch the many of the John Ford parallels, but I did think that the cable snatch from the Hong Kong building was very similar to a scene from John Wayne’s The Green Berets.
Just saw it last night with my son at an Imax theater.
He gave it a 10. I struggled to give it a 6.5. Too long, too corny, unresolved…but Ledger was great.
Anyway, it didn’t even approach living up to the hype. Hell, I liked any one of the LOTR movies much more.
It’s a “wait for the DVD” movie for me, and I wouldn’t even watch the DVD if Jeopardy was on TV. Or my sock drawer needed straightening out.
Serious ho-hum.
But Batman wasn’t a federal official. He could be likened more to a bounty hunter, even though he did not get a cash reward. It’s illegal, but don’t modern-day bounty hunters go down to Mexico to bring back felons. It’s nothing to the US authorities how the criminals showed up on their doorstep as long as they themselves did nothing wrong.
Not to worry. I suspect Ebert’s used to being astonished by now. But I think the film would be a fair candidtae for nomination.
Sloppy screenwriting - I like my action movies tight and this wasn’t. 45 minutes too long. I hate to say it, but Maggie was a mistake, the thing that made Rachel believeable was her girl next doorness - her innocence and belief in doing what was right. The thought that Bruce has to be Batman to make the world safe so Rachel doesn’t need to be a DA. Maggie doesn’t pull off girl next door. She doesn’t pull off heroine. Not enough Bruce Wayne - once again a Batman director has fallen to “the Joker is more interesting than Batman.” Needed (like at 45 minutes too long it needed anything) a scene or two to remind us that Rachel is “the girl next door.” And where did that wonderful art direction from the first film go - Gotham didn’t look like it did from the first film. I’ll give it a B - I’m curving up because my expectations were high.
Oh, I know. I mentioned before that I know of no statute, state, local or federal, that refuses to try a person because they were “illegally extradited” (for lack of a better phrase) back to the venue of proper jurisdiction. I mean, what are they going to do, “sorry, it looks like you ended up in our jurisdiction against your intent we’ll let you go now.”? :dubious:
Yes, didn’t catch that. It also reminds me of a similar scene I’ve seen somewhere else, more recently, but I can’t put my finger on it.