So the ball's in your court McG. Let's see what you got.

It does sound like McG is stepping up, so will give him the benefit of the doubt. This could be awesome.

I really like this cast. I saw Anton Yelchin in "Alpha Dog" and that took away some of my concerns about him. He was great in it. I'm interested in what Sam Worthington will do with Bale. I'm looking forward to this.

But, just for the record, Sarah Connor's journey fits into the hero myth template EXACTLY. Both T1 and T2.

But the point is... those movies are within a huge scope of other themes and characters details, so it works organically.

I do hope they nail this. John Connor has been a hugely underdeveloped character to me and I'm ready to see him kick ass instead of brooding about becoming a hero he's not ready to be.

Seriously, though, they should just do away with PG-13 and lower the age limit to 15 on R movies. That's the age studios want anyway -- teenagers -- not some 6th grader who started a year late because of lupus.

So I'd like to see him step up. He certainly has a kinetic visual style, unlike, say, Ratner.

On the flip-side... what sequel or remake director HASN'T gushed about the original movie or game they are sequelizing, adapting, or reimagining. I mean, Singer worshipped Superman 1 above all else. Didn't quite hit the mark, though.

That kind of stuff smacks too much of Lucasian BobaFettism, that is, paying so much attention to the ephemera of the mythos that you forget to tell a smashing story.

I hope I'm wrong, needless to say.

The upside is T4 will have swirling ass.

Aside from that I'm looking forward to this. Just about anything is better than T3 and at the very least we'll get to see some nice robots and shit.

And not because I was only five years old at the time. Actually, I watched it a shitload of times on video.

Anyway, THE DARK KNIGHT has Nicky Katt and that's a problem, but no bigger than the "hasta la vista" shit and John Conner being annoying in general. High-fives and shit like that. The thumbs-up at the end, etc. The two films are totally comparable.

CELEBRATE THIS SUMMER, because soon we will be back to stupid, mindless, condescending Summer bullshit.

The less said about CA 2, the less said. But McG is clearly pushing himself here to take T4 'Empire Strikes Back' levels of goodness... Terminator 1 & 2 levels of goodnes... which is obviously impossible, crazy... but God bless the dude for at least wanting to aim that high.

Next year we are getting an already-intriguing looking Bale Terminator movie, a Watchmen movie that promises to largely deliver on requested copious amounts of chocolate covered pussy juice, and... Ava...fucking...tar. Then in 2011 Battle Fucking Angel! James Cameron, with not a speck of water around either picture!

We really don't deserve to have things this good right now. Yeah, we all know what happened the last time we allowed ourselves to get excited about anything... but at least lightning can never strike again with Phantom Menace levels of franchise-killing severity. Can it..?

I don't understand all this uncritical praise for TDK. Take Batman and the Joker out of it, and you would get bored of the story after ten minutes.

As per organized chaos... look at Osama Bin Laden. He is highly organized... asks his followers to kill themselves for him yet grows in popularity... and yet... what does he want, really? I would say even if the Middle East becomes a Muslim state, he would still be searching for something to rebel against, something to bring down... He is simply an agent of chaos, which makes him so scary to a "rational" warfare mentality. There is no compromise or negotiation b/c his demands are irrational.

I'd say TDK raises some relevant themes.

But the POINT is it is STILL FANTASY and it's about THE BROADER THEMES.

It isn't critic-proof... I agree about not liking Batman to take the fall in the end... but geez. Suspend the disbelief for a couple hours.

Yes, you guessed right: I'm describing 1989's Oscar-nominated Wallace and Gromit's Grand Day Out.

Wall-E is VERY polished and very cute, and benefits from the best technology and resources the modern world can offer. But I'll take A GRAND DAY OUT's low-tech craftsmanship and personal vision any day of the week over Pixar's designed-by-committee slickness.

First and foremost, Islamic terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden HAVE AN ETHOS AND PHILOSOPHY. They are carrying out their attacks in the name of God. They believe that THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS. They see themselves as striking out at a GREAT EVIL. They believe their cause is not only justified but that it is JUST. They have other reasons besides religious ones, but rest assured, they think they are trying to defeat Evil. They see the West as THE GREAT SATAN - and we've also given them plenty of excuses to claim that.

This is not what the Joker is about at all. He doesn't care for Good or Evil, he is not striking out to avenge historic grievances. He's just causing mayhem because he enjoys it. Sure, in TDK he initially describes his reasons as being anarchistic. Later he seems to claim that his reasons are nihilistic. But, since he changes his story so often, you can't really believe any justification he gives. The most likely explanation is the one offered by Alfred: "Some men just like to watch the world burn. That is completely the opposite of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. They think they are SAVING the world.

Just a couple of short points 'cause trying to change some-one's mind is pointless...

By 'nihilism' I was referring to the Joker's speech to Harvey in the hospital. No one can make me believe that Harvey's sudden conversion was convincing. It was totally out of step with how the character was established in the rest of the movie. Yes, and that includes the 'interrogation' scene.

Trying to put 'adult' ideas or themes into a movie does NOT make it a good movie. And my feeling is that philosophical lessons are not behind the Nolans' desire to make this movie.

To me this movie was made as a series of 'impressive' or 'cool' kick-ass events. And then they tried to tie it together loosely with flimsy motivations and logic. I don't buy that there is any serious attempt to comment on human nature here. I've already explained the completely stupid and unnecessary decision to make Batman 'take the blame'. That decision was made solely for the purpose of gaining the audience's sympathy for Batman - without any consideration for how illogical it was. They could easily have pinned it on the Joker.

Take Batman and the Joker out of it and REPLACE THEM with Special Agent X and Super-terrosist Y and you would have a mediocre clone of a Mission Impossible/ Die Hard/ Speed/ True Lies/ etc anti-terrorist action film. And just for you, VegasRon: in this HYPOTHETICAL (it means we're using our IMAGINATION) scenario you can assume that the NAMES of Gordon, Fox, Dent, Gotham city would by changed too.

The only thing I can be fucked to even semi-respond to the percieved suddenness of Dent's turning. His "turning" starts earlier, and is a culmination of the tragic events surrounding him. Eckhart did a great job protraying a man who is at the beginning supremely confident and totally loses everything by the end. I thought his final standoff was a bit talky, but his motivation wasn't contrived, IMO.

I don't know wtf you're ranting about in the last post, I just simply stated that neither Batman nor Gordon would frame someone for several murders, even if it IS the Joker. Had he died, maybe.

As I said, The Joker at first explains his actions through the philosophy of ANARCHISM. Later on he seems to subscribe to NIHILISM. I said that in my post.

BUT, given that he seems to change his story all the time (as well as the origins of his scars), I would say he's making it up as he goes along and doesn't particularly care. Probably the most accurate explanation is what Alfred says: "Some men just like to watch the world burn."

But even if his philosophy is anarchism or nihilism, neither of them compare to Bin Laden's Islamic extremism. They are not even remotely related.

As to TDK, I don't hate it: it's got some 'cool' moments - but I require my action movies to have a minimum of logical progression and a minimum of plausibility within the context of the worlds they create. I am saying 'MINIMUM'! I'm not expecting anything unreasonable! And to be fair, most good actioners manage to do this. TDK doesn't though. I can admire the craftsmanship that's gone into it - and enjoy the setpieces - but it's a forgettable movie. There's much better examples of this kind of movie out there.

I remember back when Tim Burton's Batman came out (1989 I think). Everyone was saying it was a huge EVENT. That it was iconic. That it depicted two archetypes locked in a symbolic struggle against the background of a corrupt and and decaying urban nightmare. That it completely revamped the comic-book genre. That Nicholson's joker was a groundbreaking, landmark performance, the definitive interpretation of the character.

Nowadays it's generally recognised for the laughable piece of crap that it is. People are embarrassed to admit that they ever praised Nicholson's Joker. And it's clear that Burton's whimsical, romantic sensibility was ill-suited to the Batman franchise.

But at the time it was the IN thing. It captured the 'zeitgeist.'

So I understand that people are going apeshit for TDK. It's been a very bad summer for blockbusters: Indy 4 was a crushing disappiontment - and here we have a comic book movie that tries to take itself seriously. And we're falling over it in relief. And for extra points it makes some vague, half-baked attempts to jump on the post-9/11 bandwagon. So yeah, it's FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH.

It'll be forgotten about by Christmas.

And you guys will be back here in a couple of years saying it's a pile of crap.

That's because T2 is sarah's story. Terminator was Reece's story, T3 was no-ones which is why it failed.

Hopefully Salvation will be John Connor's story.

TDK is justifiably a good film, while it may be riding the crest of it's own hype right now, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth at least some of it. Also I like how you wax lyrical about Batman capturing the zeitgeist of it's time and being loved, and then in the next breath say you didn't really like it. You're zeitgeist was soemwhere else I imagine.

by you.

They were not in the script. They were not in the movie.

Your explanations are pure conjecture on your part. But that's all they are. If ithey're not in the movie it's because they weren't put it in - and no amount of explaining by you, me or anyone CAN put them in.

I could just as easily say that Batman took the blame because it's part of a masterplan he has which will be revealed in the next movie. Or because he is actually planning to commit suicide so it doesn't matter. Or that the Devil made him do it. Or that he heard voices from Outer Space through his sonar device that told him to do it.

None of that makes it so.

'Cause it ain't in the movie.

I mean the reasons you give are pretty plausible. But they're your ideas. Not Nolan's. You say that Joker was caught? I say pin the murders on one of his henchmen. The Joker clearly has dozens. Say they did it on his orders. Say it was a henchman who wasn't identified (he was wearing a clown mask) and got away. End of story.

I can come up with any imaginary refutation to your imaginary justifications. It doesn't matter.

'Cause none of it is in the movie.

It's called a plot hole. A piece of silly logic that the film-makers hope you won't notice because you're letting the 'coolness' of the scene wash over you.

But if you're going to start explaining this particular plot hole, you might as well explain the many others in the movie. How much time have you got? Good luck!

Why don;t you try going to see the movie again and try paying more attention.

also excuse me for earlier, I misread a comment by Shadow Warrior as yours.

I also get irritated when people can't deal with someone who neither LOVES nor HATES a movie - which is where I stand on TDK. I get mightily puzzled by people who are unable to aknowledge obvious faults and plot holes in a movie. At least say, 'yeah I know it's silly, I know it makes no sense - but I can get over it because it's BATMAN and I love that character! I can forgive the film-makers a little fuzzy logic because the character's so COOL."

That's a stance I can respect because it's honest. But I would also expect you to admit in that case, that without Batman in it, you would have little or no interest in the movie.

I enjoyed TDK. It's craftsmanship is highly professional. Everyone involved seems to be trying to do a serious job - and more power to them. But I don't see anything in this movie that will stand the test of time. In other words, I don't see it as the second coming.

I see TDK as THE LATEST THING, the NEWEST thing. So it's natural that people are excited at the moment. I don't think they will be in a year's time.

Example: Ledger's Joker. I've heard the most exaggerated, ridiculous claims about his performance. Oscar-worthy etc etc. Well, that's just hype. His performance is good. It's professional, it works. He did what he was asked and fit in with Nolan's vision. But if you want to grade the good performances in this movie, then I'm going to have to hand it to Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordan - a study in retraint and dignity. Or Eckhart's Dent (pre-bizarre conversion to evil) - convincingly dedicated and driven as the DA. These roles are much more difficult to play than the Joker. They're more subtle, more nuanced.

But the villian is always the most fun character. And the Joker is an iconic villian. Personaly I think he's easy to play and any professional actor could do a decent job. People are lauding Ledger, but I think his recent death has a lot to do with it. I think the attractiveness of the character has a lot to do with it. I think our positive reaction to this performance has as much to do with the re-imaging of Alan Moore and Frank Miller as it does with Ledger's portrayal.

But in the long run, will he stand up against the great screen villians of the past? Will he be in the same bracket as:

Volonté's El Indio? Reed's Bill Sykes? Helpmann's Child Catcher? Seymour Hoffman's Davian? Guiness' Fagin? James earl Jones' Darth Vader? Bogart's Dobbs? Welles Harry Lime? Brando's Kurtz? Kinski in anything?

Personally, I don't think so. It'll be interesting to see what happens when some one else plays the Joker. What happens if that actor's performance is more subtle, more nuanced, more charismatic, scarier, funnier than Ledger's? That will get confusing for a lot of people!

What if Ledger hadn't taken the part in the first place? Would the movie have crashed and burned without him? No. They would have got some one else just as good (or better?) and THAT is the performance everyone would be nominating for an oscar today.

His name is still lame and he chats some serious Bullshit ALL the time like he's constantly trying to sell himslef but T3 wasn't exactly amazing, just enjoyable although my mate thinks it's the best one!?

Anyway No inflating T-titties or lady shades or pet robot or bad 80s hair just plenty future warstuff and it might just work!

You mention Alfred's story about the Burmese 'warlord'. Now this story TO ME is an CLASSIC example of the faulty logic and lack of consistency in the movie.

"Some men just like to watch the world burn," says Alfred. And then by way of example he tells the story of the Burmese 'warlord'. But the Burmese warlord WASN'T INTERESTED IN BURNING ANYTHING! He wasn't interested in destroying anything! From what Alfred told us, he liked STEALING JEWELS FOR FUN! Criminal behaviour certainly, but hardly world-shattering! Hardly terrorism! And a million miles away from what the Joker was doing!

And it was ALFRED's regiment WHO BURNED THE FOREST - NOT THE WARLORD. I repeat, it was Alfred and his men who were happy to watch the world burn! And why? Because they could not suffer a single man to be making a mockery of them.

So what on earth is the point of the story? It's actually Alfred and his regiment who come across as the 'greater evil'. And the story itself has no relation to what is happening to the Joker. Do you see my problem with it?

Because, the film-makers are not intending for us to LISTEN to what's being said or to THINK about it. It's supposed to sound COOL and we're supposed to let it wash over us.

Because scriptwriting is like making a jigsaw or a patchwork quilt - you work on different parts at different times and stitch them all together. The danger is that these discrepencies automatically crop up as a result. And IF YOU DON'T RE-READ your work you won't spot them.

This is clearly a case where they wrote both halves of Alfred's speech at different times -and didn't spot that they'd actually created an illogical piece of writing that cancels itself out.

Again, we are NOT supposed to question the script or think about it. You're supposed to let it wash over you. If you stop to think, than you will just fall into these endless little logic loops. Also the reason why you shouldn't try to rationalize something that the film-makers haven't explicitly explained. Your rationalisation will inevitably raise more questions than it answers.

This will be PG-13, 100%.

But you know, McG - don't entirely throw out your old style! I enjoyed the hell out of the CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies - once you understand they are basically live-action cartoons, anything goes and they are a hundred kinds of fun. Without the CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies going first, I doubt we'd have had a CRANK or SHOOT 'EM UP - which would have been a damn shame. They're kids movies made ofr adults, pure daft fun, and I'd love to see an ANGELS III, round off a trilogy there.

Oh, and about the name... you may have been called it since birth, but it comes off like you're a middle-aged ex-frat boy who still calls all his mates "dude" and talks about boning chicks half his age etc. It's your prerogative, but maybe a namechange would help you get that credibility you so obviously want. But hey - fuck us fanboys, we're basically whinging bitches, and if you aren't called McG I can't tell you to McFuck Off, and where's the fun in that?

Keep the faith, McDude, and make a fucknig good movie. All is forgiven - even that McFucking name - if you do that. Good luck, and bitch-slap Bale if he gets out of line. I hear he likes that shit ;D

I don't see why a mainstream movie needs to be longer than an hour and a half. It is extremely difficult to keep a story going beyond that length. Many movies can't even sustain an hour and a half. A movie needs to have an excellent reason to be two hours. There are VERY few movies that can sustain more than that. And a three-hour movie? Only Lawrence Of Arabia springs to mind.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!! !!

Oh, that is some FUNNY shit. Seriously, some fucking funny shit. Because I dropped a massive bog otter this morning, and you know, it was more entertaining than the entire prequel saga! With, like, better dialogue AND a coherent narrative. No trade sanctions bollocks, no taxation blah blah, no fucking awful Skywhinging, just a very streamlined turd that was waaaaaay more fun to sit through than those fucking excuses for entertainment were.

Man, you are a funny guy. Like you fuckin'