New Orleans Eats Forums at NOLAEats.com

I saw it. As another poster said, it is NOT FOR KIDS AT ALL. In fact, there were only 3 or 4 kids in the theater and they should not have been there. I don't even think a child could understand many elements of the story.

wow, it was depressing to me. Anyone else feel that way?

I also think it was more of a "guy" movie...

Heath Ledger did do a Great job, what was annoying was almost everytime he said a word, ONE WORD, the audience would go into mob laughter or excessive cheering.

(And I barely recognized Anthony Michael Hall, time has not been kind to him).

Did anybody help it attain its box office record this weekend? Would it have been as hyped had Heath Ledger not died before its release?

I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.

(Your welcome, and if you think "Misty" is stripping just to "get through college" you are really being taken for a pricey ride).

Not to be morbid, or insensitive but I DO think the death of Heath ledger increased attendance and the masses going to the movie, that said he did nail the part and then some.

I noticed the movie was VERY dark, storyline wise, but I remember reading when some of these movies (Hulk, Spiderman etc) follow the classic comic bok, they are darker, does anyone know for certain?

(I like A Ekhart sp? but he needs to tone down that brassy hair color. He certainly has that Marlboro man look about him)

Just read this about kids and the movie:
http://kids.yahoo.com/parents/blog/1001 ... +for+Kids?

bam bam wrote:I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.

Call me underwhelmed. Tedious, dreary, incoherent, and overlong. Most of the performances were well done. Maggie Gyllenhall (sp?) was miscast, though. Just not beautiful enough for the role.

The disappointing thing of it all is this kind of movie is right in my wheelhouse. I love this kind of flick and was geeked to the stars over seeing it. But it just didn't hit the jackpot. It was like watching a James Toney fight. Flabby, lazy, poorly toned, but hoping it could coast to victory through the sheer force of talent. A deflating experience.

Well, it must be a full moon because I agree with BCS on something. I thought the part of Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) was miscast. I want my heroine to be good looking. Maggie?? Eww!

That said, I thought is was an excellent film, although a little long. It had everything that I didn't expect out of a Batman movie. That was .... refreshing!

bam bam wrote:I saw it today too. (Sorry Suzy that restraining order is still in effect. But thank you for not causing a scene and going to theater 7. Perhaps, one day we can move past this.)

First of all, it is the BEST. MOVIE. EVER. For my money, there are three stars to this show and none of them is a dead guy named Heath. By far the best performance and the most intriguing character is Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent. He is the star of the movie and is the entire fulcrum on which the movie hinges. I would also argue that Chicago which served as Gotham City never looked more spectacular. You knew it was Chicago but you could also believe it was a fictional place. The third piece is the director Christopher Nolan. It is ashame that the Batman franchise languished in the 90s under Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. The two of them should have their directors cards revoked after seeing Nolan's interpretation of the story.

The movie is visually stunning and completely lives up to the hype. Even though it runs 2 1/2 hours in never lulls. A huge thumbs up.

What bambam said.

I just got back. Freaking awesome. I wish it was another two hours longer! Of course I am a comic book nerd. I'll likely go see it again. I think this movie did a good job showing Batman as a tragic figure who does what he does for the common good rather than for the sake of being a hero.