criterionforum.org

tavernier wrote:It's currently the #1 movie of all time at IMDB. Thousands of fanboys have made their voices heard!

UGH. I thought The Dark Knight was great but god I really hope these moronic fanboys don't make me hate it for the wrong reasons. This is ridiculous.

I agree with several points made on this thread.

Batman beats dogs, taps phones, and beats witnesses. He is a "super" right wing conservative now; The Joker gets his face beat in at Batman's Guantanamo and then later in the movie Batman has to use the Patriot Act to find him. George W. Bush and friends would be proud. Breaking the law to catch "terrorists" is a great idea, right? It's what any smart person would do to catch an evil man who is making scary videos and trying to kill the girl you are obsessed with, who wants to marry someone else.

You see, because the Joker is like a Bin Laden on a Jihad without a religion or purpose.

Although the real twist here, is that heroes aren't Firemen anymore because their firetrucks are on fire and our "terrorist" isn't the one hanging out in caves. Or something like that.

Jumping over a moving car by hitting his "bat-booster" and destroying his Bat-mobile was pretty funny. But it did help Batman create his amazing "bat pod" or "Monster truck wheeled motorcycle", which was beyond ridiculous. As was the way he drove up a building to turn it around; or the way he "accidentally" fell off of it to let Gordon save the day.

The "bat-voice" was also very funny. Several people in my theater were laughing everytime Batman would speak. My girlfriend also has her own Bat-voice now.

The scene where Bruce Wayne walks from his helicopter to his party with 3 "hot girls" made Wayne seem like a loser who had been watching too many 007 movies, or "reading" too many Playboy magazines in his Bat-cave. Cool gadgets and hot chicks "dude", this movie had Michael Bay written all over it.

Bruce Wayne or Patrick Bateman? I don't know, lets choke Harvey Dent and throw him in a closet to find out. I feel like Bruce Wayne should have had sex with someone while smiling to himself in a mirror. It would have been fun to see him hack up Lucius Fox with an axe. You know, for telling the mighty Wayne that "SONAR" was too much power for one man. The nerve of that Fox.

I feel like overall this movie would have been a lot better without Batman in it.

Heath Ledger was amazing and I feel like the Joker blowing up the hospital was the only part of the movie worth seeing. While on the other hand, half of Aaron Eckhart ended up looking like the Alien from Mars Attacks. "Don't run! We are your friends!"

Someone from PETA is sure to throw paint on Batman, he may not have a leather cape anymore, but you can't just go around throwing large dogs off of buildings (or punching them). Especially whenever Christian Bale asks early in the movie if his suit would stand up against a dog attack, to which he learned it wouldn't. Maybe a tranquilizer would have been a little more appropriate.

Can someone photoshop the words "I'm Bateman" on the image below? Please and thanks.

Formulatwo wrote:I feel like overall this movie would have been a lot better without Batman in it.

I liked the film overall, but I had significantly less patience for every single scene that the Joker wasn't in. That performance was almost too good for the rest of the movie.

karmajuice wrote:Now, one can debate the effectiveness of such an allegorical character (especially when all the other characters have such a firm, realistic basis). Batman is allegory too, but it's mixed with a distinct humanity, whereas the Joker teeters toward abstraction. I kind of like it, but I can see how it might be jarring.

Somewhat relevant to this point, I found this on Wikipedia:

Though many have been related, a definitive backstory has never been established for the Joker in the comics, and his real name has never been confirmed. He has been portrayed as lying so often about his former life that he himself is confused as to what actually happened. As he says in The Killing Joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

So the fact that the Joker himself isn't even his clear about his own backstory does seem to have precedence in comics, which suggests to me that the Nolans simply got that concept from there, as opposed to building it in as a post-9/11 allusion to al-Qaeda-style terrorism.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Chris Nolan wrote:What Batman is doing is heroic, but it can be seen in another way: as vigilantism, as a dark force outside the law. That's a very, very dangerous road to go down. He's always riding a knife edge in moral terms

One of the problems of the arguments being lined up is that they refuse the idea that Batman's actions (because he's the hero, because he saves the day) are ambiguous. Chris Nolan, if one listens to many of the posts here, is setting up nothing more than straightforward propaganda. The above interview fragment certainly doesn't reflect that. Nolan is clear that there are inherant moral problems in what Batman is doing, indeed in being a hero generally. Far from being the "right road, where the ends justify the means," it's a "very, very dangerous road." Nolan does not understand Batman's actions as being cut and dried, black and white; he believes Batman's position makes it very easy for him to slip into unethical or immoral behaviour without even realising it; and considering Batman has always verged on a noir anti-hero, I have to wonder why anyone else would believe Batman's psoition is clear-cut. If we were talking about Superman, sure; but Batman seems like a hero we're allowed to remain ambivilant about.

The argument boils down to this, as far as I can read: Batman = Hero. Hero = Supreme Good. Thus Batman = Supreme Good. Fine, as long as you're able to prove that Batman = Hero is fully and fundamentally true, without any ambiguities. Does the movie fall apart if we choose to disagree with some of Batman's actions? Can someone make unethical decisions--be indeed a flawed person--but still come out as someone laudable? Important questions these movies raise that no one seems to want to engage with.

Or it could be that it lends itself very well to that kind of analysis. I wouldn't say it works particularly well if we read it this way.

All sorts of people make reference to the 'very, very dangerous road' that Batman is taking, but this doesn't have any effect on anyone in the narrative but Batman, who descends further into his 'dark, tortured soul' routine. The film shows us that Batman's way was the only way that could have saved us, and the alternative (embodied in Harvey Dent's 'white knight'), while they are able to keep hope alive in ordinary citizens, are in reality hollow lies.

I'd say that at one point the film seems as is trying to ask if Batman (or anyone else) can make flawed decisions and still be laudable, but the ending comes across as too much of an endorsement of Batman's methods in playing up the 'misunderstood figure' angle.

This comes across as Bush/Neo-Con apologia. Batman is pursued by the public and the police because of what they view as his unethical behaviour. Considering that we, if not the public in the film, know that this unethical behaviour includes a mass surveillance system clearly meant to evoke the Patriot Act (amid other things), it's hard not to view this as akin to the criticism of the Bush administration or the Conservative way of dealing with terrorism. The public is lied to about the damage that Batman has caused, and he nobly accepts this and takes the brunt of the blame because he views it as being for the greater good. Even if he's crossed some ethical divides, Batman has done great things for us...if only we could just understand!

I'll put it bluntly: the film shows us a man who takes the conservative (well, neo-con) approach to dealing with terrorism and succeeds. The 'Liberal' alternative is shown to be inadequate in dealing with the new kind of terror that is gripping Gotham. People who take a more peaceful stance like Harvey Dent are too easily corrupted, and only a hard-line stance can get the job done. The conclusion of the film features Batman accepting a position of disrepute from the public and the police, which is depicted as a 'necessary lie'. Batman nobly takes the fall so that we can go on living in hope, without having to confront the dark truth.

It doesn't strike me as very morally ambiguous at all.

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:Jesus, the fan backlash towards critics who didn't like this movie is unbelievable. The ridiculous Rotten Tomatoes comments section aside, Keith Uhlich's negative review over at The House Next Door has garnered nearly 100 comments from people who I've generally never seen comment there (I'm a frequent House reader) of just mean-spirited, nasty stuff. I liked the movie a little more than Keith did but I think his review is excellent and points out a lot things that are wrong with the film. But as for the commentators, why so serious?

I love The House Next Door. I love the way it promotes interesting discussion, and until now it was free of the name calling that occurs whenever someone breaks from consensus throughout the internet. What's funny is that if you read the comments the same inane points recur: that Keith's review doesn't make any real points but is just pointless nitpicking (because he's specific rather than just speaking in generalities, which I think his specificity is incredibly refreshing), that he is a bad critic because he includes spoilers which don't help people deciding whether to watch the film (missing both the big SPOILER WARNING IN EFFECT[/] and the point that the article was clearly written for people who have seen the film in order to promote discussion), that he thinks he's smarter or morally superior (I think they are referring to 'writing with conviction.' Uhlich understands contrarianism and disagreements, he's not Walter Chaw), that he's pretentious/thinks he's smarter or more morally superior because he uses big words and must have been constantly checking the thesaurus (OH GOD BIG WORDS),
that he secretly likes the film but just wants attention (I think his article made it clear that he couldn't like the film with the problems he has with it).

It's pretty clear none of these people have a clue about film or criticism or intelligent discussion, or anything beyond the fact that The Dark Knight is better than The Godfather (Parts 1 or 2, depending on your preference) so it should be at #1 on IMDB.

Haggai wrote:So the fact that the Joker himself isn't even his clear about his own backstory does seem to have precedence in comics, which suggests to me that the Nolans simply got that concept from there, as opposed to building it in as a post-9/11 allusion to al-Qaeda-style terrorism.

In the context of the rest of the film (and all it's thinly veiled references to the "War on Terror" ) though, that's certainly how it comes across.

Formulatwo wrote:an absolutely incredible post

=D>

Cde. wrote:

Haggai wrote:So the fact that the Joker himself isn't even his clear about his own backstory does seem to have precedence in comics, which suggests to me that the Nolans simply got that concept from there, as opposed to building it in as a post-9/11 allusion to al-Qaeda-style terrorism.

In the context of the rest of the film (and all it's thinly veiled references to the "War on Terror" ) though, that's certainly how it comes across.

I guess it does to you, but as you're saying, that's dependent on the specific political manner in which you read the rest of the film.

True.

I thought this was great, and found it hard to do it justice in my reviw. It's probably the first time an Alan Moore comic has ever been done well on the big screen, as The Killing Joke looms large over the story and the Joker's characterization.

cde wrote:the film shows us a man who takes the conservative (well, neo-con) approach to dealing with terrorism and succeeds. The 'Liberal' alternative is shown to be inadequate in dealing with the new kind of terror that is gripping Gotham

This purely modern-political reading misses the larger archetype being used: to catch a beast one must become a beast/when one looks into the darkness the darkness looks back into you, ect., ect. It's not very different from a lot of movies. Again, I'll repeat myself: people are finding things in this movie I'm sure they would not if the film had been made pre-patriot act. Nor do they object to similar stuff in other, older movies. Oh well. It's not like anyone's proven beyond a doubt the movie is endorsing the allegories that are being extracted.

cde wrote:All sorts of people make reference to the 'very, very dangerous road' that Batman is taking, but this doesn't have any effect on anyone in the narrative but Batman, who descends further into his 'dark, tortured soul' routine.

I don't know what this means.

cde wrote:The film shows us that Batman's way was the only way that could have saved us

And perhaps the only way to "save" the West from terrorists is indeed to take away every freedom we have. It's not implausible, and may be a rather disturbing reality of terrorism: that the things we cherish may be the things that most expose us. Acknowledging that this may be a reality does not make you neo-conservative (although you just might be a pessemist). You can read it as a propoganda move if you want. I'd rather see it as one more reason evil is so disturbing.

cde wrote:I'd say that at one point the film seems as is trying to ask if Batman (or anyone else) can make flawed decisions and still be laudable, but the ending comes across as too much of an endorsement of Batman's methods in playing up the 'misunderstood figure' angle.

So you agree the film does ask whether or not Batman can be a flawed yet laudable figure, but this is ruined when the movie answers "yes"?

You're too vague on the details to make your reading convincing. You resort to too many generalizations of the actions. Maybe use a bit more formal analysis?

For a film of such massive size and scope and with such an inflated sense of self, it really did nothing but coast on the talent of Ledger and Eckhart. It reminds me of Gangs of New York, a film that sought so badly to be a masterpiece, but offered nothing more than a solid Daniel Day-Lewis performance. And frankly, I'm puzzled by how right-wing the film was. It's been fashionable for movies to be anti-Bush for years now that it's surreal to see a movie that's blatantly pro-Bush.

I'm sorry to keep bitching about the movie, but I just gotta say that the William Fichtner shotgun fight with the Joker was more fun than any of Bale's clumsily shot/edited action scenes.

Bananafish wrote:An IMDB ranking really shouldn't concern anyone on this board.

Yeah, but this might.

Just saw it. Good performances across the board. Even surprising to see how well Eric Roberts and Tiny Lister did.

Biggest weekend ever. Ray Carney must be quietly weeping.

By the way, I don't know where, but someone mentioned having issues hearing the dialogue over the sound FX and the score (brilliantly done, btw). I was definitely having time hearing the dialogue towards the end.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Just saw it. Good performances across the board. Even surprising to see how well Eric Roberts and Tiny Lister did.

It's okay if you write anything longer that that. I won't consider you a "fanboy" if you do...

Mr_sausage wrote:

cde wrote:the film shows us a man who takes the conservative (well, neo-con) approach to dealing with terrorism and succeeds. The 'Liberal' alternative is shown to be inadequate in dealing with the new kind of terror that is gripping Gotham

This purely modern-political reading misses the larger archetype being used: to catch a beast one must become a beast/when one looks into the darkness the darkness looks back into you, ect., ect. It's not very different from a lot of movies. Again, I'll repeat myself: people are finding things in this movie I'm sure they would not if the film had been made pre-patriot act. Nor do they object to similar stuff in other, older movies. Oh well. It's not like anyone's proven beyond a doubt the movie is endorsing the allegories that are being extracted.

I agree. I think the political content in the film is minor at best, largely limited to a handful of scenes, and I'm not especially convinced by the supposedly pro-Bush readings of the film's thrust. If one is really determined to read this as a Bush/9-11 allegory, the film heavily suggests that Batman's presence in Gotham helped to create and inspire the Joker, and that without Batman's actions the Joker would probably never have existed in as extreme a form -- much like how the West's militaristic actions around the world helped create and fan the flames of Islamic fundamentalism. This is a central irony in the film, how Batman believes he's doing good by acting outside the law, but at the same time he's helping to create a new breed of criminals who are acting in response to him. One of the film's themes is the intimate connections between good and evil, so if one is really inclined to say Batman=Bush, you'd have to acknowledge the extent to which the film questions Batman's morality, implicating him in the Joker's creation. Goodness in the film is depicted as walking a moral tightrope, always teetering on the edge; it's always possible to turn to evil or at least to divert from the unambiguous path of good. Even the ordinary people at the end, who ultimately all make the right choice, teeter for a long time beforehand, on the brink of making a choice to murder hundreds.

For even more Batman-related discussion, head on over to DVDTalk, where they currently have ten different threads on the subject.

exte wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Just saw it. Good performances across the board. Even surprising to see how well Eric Roberts and Tiny Lister did.

It's okay if you write anything longer that that. I won't consider you a "fanboy" if you do...

lol. I've never owned a comic book in my life, other than some really light kiddie fare I bought when I was a wee lad.

I enjoyed this as a very good action/crime story more than anything else. That is my favorite genre (more crime than action, really), and this piqued my interest more than any of the other comic book adaptations coming out. That Christopher used Heat as inspiration was an added bonus of my enjoyment.

Everybody is gushing over Heath (as they should), but I was absolutely stunned by Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. I came into it really not expecting much from him, but by the end I was floored by what he did for the movie.

Spoiler

The scene where he's on the floor with the oil pouring down his face and the aftermath of him waking up in the hospital, realizing what had happened was absolutely heartbreaking. The grief he had for Rachel in the latter moment was entirely palpable. Later when he holds Gordon's family hostage, I felt more torn than I usually do in moments like that in movies because in a twisted way I understood his reasoning under the circumstances.

BTW, I thought the disfigured side of his face could have been better, but it was much better than the cartoony side of Tommy Lee Jones' face in Forever.

sevenarts wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:

cde wrote:the film shows us a man who takes the conservative (well, neo-con) approach to dealing with terrorism and succeeds. The 'Liberal' alternative is shown to be inadequate in dealing with the new kind of terror that is gripping Gotham

This purely modern-political reading misses the larger archetype being used: to catch a beast one must become a beast/when one looks into the darkness the darkness looks back into you, ect., ect. It's not very different from a lot of movies. Again, I'll repeat myself: people are finding things in this movie I'm sure they would not if the film had been made pre-patriot act. Nor do they object to similar stuff in other, older movies. Oh well. It's not like anyone's proven beyond a doubt the movie is endorsing the allegories that are being extracted.

I agree. I think the political content in the film is minor at best, largely limited to a handful of scenes, and I'm not especially convinced by the supposedly pro-Bush readings of the film's thrust. If one is really determined to read this as a Bush/9-11 allegory, the film heavily suggests that Batman's presence in Gotham helped to create and inspire the Joker, and that without Batman's actions the Joker would probably never have existed in as extreme a form -- much like how the West's militaristic actions around the world helped create and fan the flames of Islamic fundamentalism. This is a central irony in the film, how Batman believes he's doing good by acting outside the law, but at the same time he's helping to create a new breed of criminals who are acting in response to him. One of the film's themes is the intimate connections between good and evil, so if one is really inclined to say Batman=Bush, you'd have to acknowledge the extent to which the film questions Batman's morality, implicating him in the Joker's creation. Goodness in the film is depicted as walking a moral tightrope, always teetering on the edge; it's always possible to turn to evil or at least to divert from the unambiguous path of good. Even the ordinary people at the end, who ultimately all make the right choice, teeter for a long time beforehand, on the brink of making a choice to murder hundreds.

I'd have to agree here. I won't write much, since this movie has been discussed at length already. But by film's end, the love interest has been murdered; the upstanding force for good has first been transformed into a psychopath and then killed; the nominal "hero," questioning his own motivations all the way, has largely failed and is now an outlaw, on the run; at least one of his compatriots has rejected further participation, finding the methods of his boss to be unethical; and the city is in ruins. This doesn't seem to be the sum of a pro-vigilante or pro-fascist agenda. I don't find anything "reassuring" about the conclusion of the movie. If anything, the movie presents a world very much like our own where nothing seems to work in resolving the dilemma of the evil that men do: no psychological reading of evil (The Joker is impenetrable), not law-and-order, not vigilante-ism, nothing. The only ray of light came from the masses of citizens themselves, choosing neither to blow up the criminals' boat nor blow up the innocents' boat. I think Kehr and others are off-base.

Nicely put, Ted. Some of the discussion on this board that detail the apparent political allegories of the film are certainly well thought out, but I simply don't see it. They do, however, make for an interesting discourse.

It's definitely the best film I've seen this year.

SPOILERS (and you really shouldn't be reading this thread if you need to know this):

TedW wrote:But by film's end, the love interest has been murdered; the upstanding force for good has first been transformed into a psychopath and then killed; the nominal "hero," questioning his own motivations all the way, has largely failed and is now an outlaw, on the run; at least one of his compatriots has rejected further participation, finding the methods of his boss to be unethical; and the city is in ruins. This doesn't seem to be the sum of a pro-vigilante or pro-fascist agenda. I don't find anything "reassuring" about the conclusion of the movie.

The ending supports the idea that "lying" to the public and having them villianize you is fine, since they don't know what's best for them and you do. It is certainly more reassuring than the dark, complex tone the ending deserved, right down to a "stirring" voiceover and "heroic" musical score (the by-the-number score in this film, similar to pretty much every other film of this ilk, is also one of my gripes with the film), and leads me to no other conclusion than the film is squarely on the side of Batman and Gordon's decision. Sure, we can recognize the irony in the ending, but that doesn't mean the film does, and I find very little irony actually there on the celluloid.

There were all the ingredients for an open-ended, more ambiguous ending, and Nolan certainly knows they were there, which makes the way it was handled all the more disappointing (And I also felt Lucius Fox's stand to be a problem, as I mentioned earlier).

Mr_sausage wrote:One of the problems of the arguments being lined up is that they refuse the idea that Batman's actions (because he's the hero, because he saves the day) are ambiguous.

I'm not saying there aren't points where the film treats Batman's actions as ambiguous; for a good portion of the film it does so intelligently, and those portions are fantastic and enough for me to recommend the film. It's the smaller portion where it loses it shit that's problematic, and the ending is a point where it is especially so.

I'm not yelling Pro-Bush because there's nothing I've read that suggest Nolan believes in that direction, and many things I've read show he recognized how complex the moral questions brought up are. But it doesn't take away the fact that there are problematic conclusions in the film, and if not the result of fascist politics, they're definitely the result of a failure in storytelling.

Mr_sausage wrote:Again, I'll repeat myself: people are finding things in this movie I'm sure they would not if the film had been made pre-patriot act. Nor do they object to similar stuff in other, older movies. Oh well. It's not like anyone's proven beyond a doubt the movie is endorsing the allegories that are being extracted.

I don't see how that is a problem. Dynamic shifts in the world require shifts in what's acceptable.

There's literature with hints of Antisemitism made before Nazi-Germany I can enjoy since I recognized for many people antisemitism was a highly present, and relatively acceptable aspect in society. I can't ignore it nor how ugly it is, but there is a context where its understandable. After the Holocaust, I really can't say the same; the ugly inevitable conclusion of antisemitism is far too obvious now for antisemitism to be overlooked or explained away so easily. I think Coal Black and De Sebbin Dwarfs is one of the great cartoons of all time despite its racism for similar reasons; if it was made today, I need not say how it would be received by the public, me included.

Cde mention art isn't created in a vacuum. The same applies here.

Mr_sausage wrote:And perhaps the only way to "save" the West from terrorists is indeed to take away every freedom we have. It's not implausible, and may be a rather disturbing reality of terrorism: that the things we cherish may be the things that most expose us. Acknowledging that this may be a reality does not make you neo-conservative (although you just might be a pessemist). You can read it as a propoganda move if you want. I'd rather see it as one more reason evil is so disturbing.

Perhaps it is. It still doesn't take away the complexity of the issue, nor the fact that while it may be necessary, it still isn't right.

Watchmen, which you may or may not have read, ends similarly to The Dark Knight: A lie must be sold to the public for their own good, a lie in this case which happens to kill several million innocent people. There's nothing in Watchmen to suggest under these circumstance, that the lie wasn't the right choice. Even the god-like figure, with infinite knowledge and powers, agrees. Yet, Moore doesn't remove the moral dilemma inherent in the act, regardless whether it was necessary or not. We still feel outraged that millions had to die. We still feel outraged that the public will never know the truth. We feel outraged that Rorschach is killed for daring to reveal the truth. We feel outraged that such an act could ever be necessary, yet like Nite Owl and Specter, we feel powerless to stop it, or even oppose it.

If that sort of recognition of both sides of the coin was prevalent through the entire film, I don't think there would be such a problem, its points where they reduce the complexity of the dilemma, and towards the side that doesn't fall under our modern understanding of justice and civil rights, that are problematic.

sevenarts wrote:the film heavily suggests that Batman's presence in Gotham helped to create and inspire the Joker, and that without Batman's actions the Joker would probably never have existed in as extreme a form -- much like how the West's militaristic actions around the world helped create and fan the flames of Islamic fundamentalism.

I think "heavily" would be too strong a word, but it does suggest it. The film would have benefited from exploring this idea more. In my opinion, it doesn't do enough with it.

God, I go out of town for one weekend and I have to sift through 5 extra pages of Dark Knight thread.

If I may add a little something more to the political discussion before the site crashes,

I'm going back and forth between how I feel about it...I caught the whole Patriot act allusion the first time(I'd be stupid not to), but I don't know how I missed making the connection between Guantanamo and the interrogation scene.

I feel that the Batman - Bush comparison has a pretty solid foundation. But whether or not it's a glorification of Bush or not is another argument.

As Nolan himself said, Batman's path is a very very dangerous one. He ESCALATED the conflict, so he is in a way responsible for this new breed of criminal. He starts wearing armor, so the criminals buy armor piercing rounds, etc. I can't say whether Gotham is better or worse because of him. Batman "completes" these terrorists though, that's for sure. And despite these extreme measures Batman takes, he never seems to win the war, as much as those measures do seem like the ones necessary to win the war. But Gotham just keeps rotting away.
Are these means justified? I guess it's up to what you believe in, I personally feel like Nolan depicted Batman's path as the wrong one to take, Batman even knew he had to hand the torch over to Harvey Dent, a face acting within the law. Batman is flawed. I guess I'll just have to wait for the 3rd film.

With All that said, you do make a good point CDE when you said

I'd say that at one point the film seems as is trying to ask if Batman (or anyone else) can make flawed decisions and still be laudable, but the ending comes across as too much of an endorsement of Batman's methods in playing up the 'misunderstood figure' angle.

Also, Mr. Sausage, your posts have also been enlightening ones.

I'm just happy I've found a place where valid criticisms, arguments, and counter-arguments are made, as opposed to that IMDB bullshit. Thanks everybody!

Yeah, Oldman's closing monologue was pretty unbearable and an awful note to end on, whether or not you take the political reading.

Also, I loved the shot of the Joker hanging out of the police car window. It sticks in the memory. One other shot stood out to me, too, but I can't remember what it was.

karmajuice wrote:It sticks in the memory. One other shot stood out to me, too, but I can't remember what it was.

Is this a riddle?

karmajuice wrote:Also, I loved the shot of the Joker hanging out of the police car window. It sticks in the memory. One other shot stood out to me, too, but I can't remember what it was.

I have to agree, though the joker in a dress has to be a ten foot poster. It's so iconic. Taken from the imax negative, I think they can do it...