Why So Serious? Dark Knight raises massive cash

[Ice]

I really thought this movie was great. Apparently so did a lot of other people.

I though I'd post these two clips along with the article. Kudos to SwedishFish for finding them.

Edit:

They removed the videos :(.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dark Knight' No. 1 again, nears $400 million mark

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Even an army of the undead could not dislodge Batman from his box-office perch.

The Batman blockbuster "The Dark Knight" hauled in $43.8 million to rank as Hollywood's top movie for the third-straight weekend, fending off "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," which opened a close second with $42.5 million.

"The Dark Knight" has soared to a $394.9 million haul in just 17 days, according to studio estimates Sunday. The Warner Bros. release should sail past the $400 million mark by Monday or Tuesday, said Dan Fellman, head of distribution for Warner.

That would be on the film's 18th or 19th day of release, another record for "The Dark Knight," which had an all-time high opening weekend of $158.4 million. The previous $400 million record-holder was "Shrek 2," which hit that mark in 43 days.

"It's a film that is just rewriting the record books every day and redefining our notions of what a blockbuster can be," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Media By Numbers.

"The Dark Knight" will top $500 million, predicted Fellman, who would not speculate on whether it could approach the all-time domestic revenue record of "Titanic" at $600.8 million.

Even if it edged past that mark, "The Dark Knight" would lag behind "Titanic" in terms of actual tickets sold. Admission prices are up more than 50 percent since "Titanic" came out in 1997, according to Media By Numbers. "The Dark Knight" would have to take in about $900 million to match the number of tickets that "Titanic" sold.

In terms of revenue alone, however, "The Dark Knight" will pass the original "Star Wars," which is No. 2 behind "Titanic" with $461 million, and such hits as "Shrek 2" ($436.5 million), "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" ($434.9 million) and "Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace" ($431.1 million).

Early anticipation over Heath Ledger's diabolical performance as Batman foe the Joker built to a frenzy in the months after the actor's death from an accidental prescription drug overdose in January.

A huge opening weekend was guaranteed, but the movie has sustained its audience from stellar reviews and audience buzz.

"The movie has grown in terms of its base audience from primarily what was conceived as a young male movie to a movie for everybody, from 8 to 80," Fellman said. "They're going to see it because of the reviews, they're going to see it because of the word of mouth. They're going just to see what it's all about, and they all like it."

"The Dark Knight" also has taken in $202.5 million overseas, opening in six more markets in August, among them Japan, France and Russia.

Universal's third "Mummy" flick sends Brendan Fraser's adventurer and his wife, played this time by Maria Bello, to China, where they battle a resurrected ancient ruler, played by Jet Li, and his undead minions.

Though it put up strong numbers, the new installment had the smallest opening of the three movies. "The Mummy" debuted with $43.4 million in 1999 and "The Mummy Returns" did $68.1 million in 2001.

Along with its $42.5 million domestic haul, the new "Mummy" tale pulled in $59.5 million in 28 countries overseas.

"The Dark Knight" almost certainly took away some business from the "The Mummy," since both movies competed for the same action crowds.

"It looked like we could do somewhere between $45 and $50 million, but no one could have foreseen the juggernaut `The Dark Knight' has become," said Nikki Rocco, head of distribution for Universal.

Disney's "Swing Vote," about a presidential election that hinges on the lone ballot of an over-the-hill slacker played by Kevin Costner, opened weakly with $6.3 million, coming in at No. 6.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Media By Numbers LLC. Final figures will be released Monday.

[Mailman653]

It was pretty good, one of the few times one can say the sequel was as good as the first movie.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I definitely liked it, even though I didn't see Batman Begins. It obviously blows the Joel Schumacher (spelling?) films out of the water, not that that's difficult to do, and maybe even the Burton ones, although I'm undecided about that at the moment.

My personal favorite Joker scenes are the initial "Why so serious?" one and the whole hospital sequence.

[naut]

The pool que. =O

[Geoffrey S]

Guess I'll just repost this.

Just returned from The Dark Knight. Dear me, what a painfully average movie - rarely have I sat through a movie's last half hour impatiently waiting for the curtains to drop. For a large part the mediocre screenplay is to blame for this. There were plenty of great ideas in there. In fact, too many. There was enough material for at least two full length films; what was in there was rushed through and insufficiently developed, with much packed into the second half at a machine-gun rate and the first half padded out beyond reason with the worst material.

This wasn't helped by the outright poor script, riddled with cliches. More experienced actors such as Caine, Oldman and Freeman delivered their lines in the perfunctory manner they deserved; Bale struggled, yet was solid and suited the role well; and Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were outright poor in their flat performances. Only Ledger showed an ounce of originality, effort for his part - but, it pains me to say, the hype about his sensational performance is just that. Easily the star of the film, but mainly because his enthusiastic and colourful performance contrast strongly with his gray opposites. The script had pretensions. Yet rather than being subtle, it all had to be spelled out for the audience in po-faced dialogue. Indeed, why so serious?

How much the direction is to blame for the workman-like feel of the movie, I'm not certain. Technically it was in fine shape, with nice design, great lighting and very solid camerawork. Nothing stood out as magnificent, but there was certainly nothing wrong with the technical aspects. What did bother me was the flat presentation. Aside from the movie, Nolan did a poor job of build-up. The exception was the turning point halfway through, which was a fantastic sequence. But other moments were less impressive. An example is a scene near the start involving a pencil: what could have been a shocking, jarring moment did not achieve its full potential due to its short build-up and weak follow-up. Again, I think this has much to do with the weak screenplay and the amount of things it attempted to convey in its 150-odd minutes.

I re-iterate: what an average movie. It was certainly not bad. Much like X-Men 3, it left me disappointed and feeling like I had watched a cluttered and unfulfilling tribute. The only thing spectacular about the movie is the hype: every single press piece I have seen has been overwhelmingly positive. To be honest, I have yet to see anything negative about the movie. Hype is nothing wrong. Plenty of times, it has been more than justified. But this one? I'm half reminded of the story about the emperor's new cloths.

Suffice to say I'm amazed at the response to the movie. I've now even seen a couple of reviews mentioning the things said above, but none seem to take the step saying that such issues mean it's not the best things since [enter whichever hyperbolic comparison]. And I'll just have to add that what is often cited as the strongest point of the movie, its philosophy, is far from being original. Hero or vigilante? Been there. How low should a hero sink when fighting the bad guy? Done that.

[Moros]

Going to watch it altough I've got the feeling the reason the film is hyped is more because Ledger died, than because of the quality of the movie.

[LittleGrizzly]

I wouldn't agree with all the hype... all these 9/10 and 9.5/10 ratings, but i would say its a good entertaining movie with a good storyline where your not sure what will happen next, i would give it an 8/10 myself, entertaining watch no film off the year...

All the hype dampened the experience for me, i was expecting to be blown away. Was it actually unejoyable geoffrey or did all the hype just mean it was a dissappointment to what you where expecting...

[Geoffrey S]

Perhaps the hype played a part. I was genuinely hoping for a great film, even though I didn't find the first part anything particularly special. But there were plenty of things wrong with this movie as a whole, as stated above, and I am amazed that critics let them get away with it - there were certainly good moments, but overall it was average and the problems I had were structural enough (script, acting, screenplay) to dampen enjoyment. Even aside from expectations raised by the hype these objections still would have been present.

I think what would have genuinely helped the movie would be more focus, half an hour less length. As it stands, Nolan was overindulgent.

Again, a movie that evoked the same feeling was the third X-Men movie.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Funny, I thought Eckhart was the best actor in the film.

[woad&fangs]

This wasn't helped by the outright poor script, riddled with cliches. More experienced actors such as Caine, Oldman and Freeman delivered their lines in the perfunctory manner they deserved; Bale struggled, yet was solid and suited the role well; and Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were outright poor in their flat performances. Only Ledger showed an ounce of originality, effort for his part - but, it pains me to say, the hype about his sensational performance is just that. Easily the star of the film, but mainly because his enthusiastic and colourful performance contrast strongly with his gray opposites.
Blasphemy!!! Ledger was the perfect villain. As for the rest of the cast, I would say that none really stood out as great but none of their performances really seemed poor to me either.

The script had pretensions. Yet rather than being subtle, it all had to be spelled out for the audience in po-faced dialogue. Indeed, why so serious?
You were expecting subtlety from a summer blockbuster? Yes the big ideas were pounded into our heads with a sledgehammer but I really don't mind that from a summer movie. There actually is a lot of subtle symbols and irony throughout the movie that really helped set the mood for me. The use of dogs and the burning firetruck I particularily enjoyed.

An example is a scene near the start involving a pencil: what could have been a shocking, jarring moment did not achieve its full potential due to its short build-up and weak follow-up.
Your critiquing the pencil scene?? You must have some crazy high standards.....that makes me really want to see In Bruges now.

Hero or vigilante? Been there. How low should a hero sink when fighting the bad guy? Done that.
I think the philosophy they were going for was more about the nature of fear and mob mentality. In that regard I think they did very well.
---------------
What you have to keep in mind is that what one audience member finds rushed and chaotic, another will find to be slow and plodding.

Personally, I do agree with you that the movie could have been better if it had been shortened but I never found it unbearably fast.

[Kralizec]

Haven't seen the movie yet, though I intend to - even if only to see what the hype is all about.

The two video's Kush posted aren't that great IMO. I kind of agree with Geoffrey about the pencil thing. And does anyone else think that the dialogue in that bank scene seems unnatural and very matter-of-factly?

[Martok]

LittleGrizzly & Geoffrey S: Ironically, the hyper-intensive hype for The Dark Knight (especially in regard to Ledger's performance) caused me to be quite cynical towards the movie. I was actually *expecting* nothing more than perhaps a slightly above-average film. So for me, the whole experience turned out to be a very pleasant surprise, since I had greatly-lowered expectations.

Not that the The Dark Knight lives up to all the hype -- no movie could possibly measure up to the attention this one has received. But I honestly feel that it does deserve *most* of it, which is still a hell of a lot more than I was prepared to expect.

[Ferret]

I didn't even know about the film until I was at the cinema, planning on seeing hancock (which wasn't on for another 6 hours...). I liked it though, even if it was too long and had a very badly done false ending...

[Marshal Murat]

I thought it was a perfect thrill.

The movie was pretty good, and I can't complain too much. But I will complain.

1. It was two movies in one, for me. The sky-pull thing/Hong-Kong trip seemed to deserve a movie within itself.

2. The movie seemed to be a 'constant climax' (as a reviewer put it) where you have thrill+thrill+thrill+thrill combined into a non-stop action film. Good for the movie, sometimes bad.

3. There were some cliches. Joker popping out of the trash bag? No surprise. Bus rolling OUT of a bank and into a line of buses was surprising that it wasn't noticed.

[KarlXII]

Happy to provide

[Quirinus]

I have to agree somewhat with Geoffrey S (my God, at last someone who doesn't think the movie is awesome!), even though I wouldn't go quite as far. It was definitely a good film-- Heath Ledger's Joker alone is worth the price of admission. But it's also too long, and the turning of Harvey Dent deserves an entire movie, not ignominously sidelined into a sub-plot. The capture-Lau-from-Hong-Kong part was superfluous, and a little boring. Why can't we have more Joker in place of that? And the grim, gritty atmosphere that made Gotham almost a character of its own in Batman Begins is mostly absent here. Instead, Gotham is now some generic city.

Maggie Gyllenhall is excellent as Rachel, whenever I think of Rachel Dawes now, it will always be her, not Katie Holmes. But I feel that Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are seriously underused. Christian Baleis effective in his own scenes, but like Michael Keaton before him, he sorta fades into the background when the Joker comes on, which shouldn't happen. The Joker would have been a more accurate title.

One nice Batman scene, though, was the final confrontation is the Joker, that final monologue the Joker delivers upside-down. One could almost hear Liam Neeson's Ra's Al Ghul intoning "Have you finally learned to do what is neccesary?" The movie is like that, some uber-cool scenes swamped by uninspiring ones, IMO. In a nutshell, demented performance by Ledger, but otherwise no part of the sequel matches the quality of the first by a long shot.

[Ferret]

I definately agree about Gotham becoming a generic city, there was none of the character like in the last film, it could have easily been a normal US city, though I suppose this may represent the fact that batman had scared a lot of criminals out of business, giving the city a chance to recover. Still the first one plus the joker would have been better