If Jilli got one of those boxes, we'd hear the squeeing from the East Coast, no need for B.Org or LJ to carry the news.

Good assessment.

I too was impressed all to hell by TDK. It was gutting, though, on a number of levels. Brilliant stuff.

(And, randomly, I remember being struck at one point by how bloody many unAmericans were in the movie. Well, okay, I was thinking Brits, but then there's Heath too... really, it would serve me right if the next Doctor Who were played by an American. Or Claudia Black. Because Bruce Wayne is being played by a Welshman. Fair play.)

Meanwhile, I've just been to see Inkheart, and I enjoyed it immensely. It's a couple of years since I read the book, so I didn't have that whole jarring-comparison-with-text thing going on; afaic, it was a cracking adaptation. I have a considerable fondness for Brendan Fraser, but it was a splendid cast, and I think that I may need shirtless!firejuggling!Paul Bettany to be shown every Christmas. Farid was terribly disarming, although it's a shame they couldn't find anyone remotely Arabic to play him. Still, pretty, and I'm shallow. (Also, I think that I need Dustfinger/Farid slash. Stat. And then some.) And Jennifer Connolly played Paul Bettany's character's love interest! Which was sweet, I thought. Bless. And Andy Serkis! OMG, I love him SO MUCH! With his lovely pretty eyes and his fabulous delivery and his INTENSITY, God he's good. He's really, really bloody good, and I'm always delighted to see him on screen. And this time he was all bald, and I kept thinking: "Gollum! It's Gollum!" And wanting to hug him and squeeze him and call him George. Bless.

Ahem. In conclusion: fun movie. Good cast. Pretty scenery. Hit a number of my kink buttons. (Reading, writing, ink letters scrawled on skin, shirtless Paul Bettany being angsty and bonding with a pretty boy... Er - that last bit's a new kink button. Well, the Bettanyness of it is, at any rate.)

I'm so glad to hear good things about Inkheart.

shirtless Paul Bettany being angsty and bonding with a pretty boy... Er - that last bit's a new kink button. Well, the Bettanyness of it is, at any rate.

Are you saying you haven't seen A Knight's Tale ? Granted the pretty-boy bonding-ness of it is rather subtle but Bettany goes way beyond shirtless.

"Gollum! It's Gollum!"

I kept feeling this way last night watching Monster House.

Which it *had* to be to tell that story (which I maintain was really Harvey Dent's story all along, just as Batman Begins was Jim Gordon's story),

Lemme ask you though, Tep-- did you buy Harvey's complete fall from grace? This idea that he had been the "uncorruptable one?" That was kind of my one quibble with it-- that I saw glimmers of Harvey's dark side and I didn't completely buy him as the White Knight character that he's supposed to be, to make the fall into darkness that much more a victory for the Joker.

I don't think Harvey was ever uncorruptable. That's the thing about Gotham -- no one, not even Jim Gordon, is a White Night.

Obviously, Harvey was set up as Batman/Bruce's "shadow" self, and vice versa. Which is why, as the movie proceeds, we see that Harvey -- without a mask -- could be what Batman had to do under cover of night. Which led Bruce to think, for just a moment, that he could quit the vigilante gig and let Harvey do it through official channels.

[NB: In the comics, the backstory is that Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent were friends for a long time before Harvey became Two-Face.]

We see right away that Harvey is ruthless, and willing to lie and obfuscate to achieve his ends -- he's not a White Night; he's just the daytime version of Batman. But that's the point of the Batman story in general -- ultimately, it's NOT possible to do in the light of day, through proper channels, what Batman does under cover of night and Scary Voice.

Bruce wouldn't be Batman if there were any other way to get it done. (Or, I should say, within these 2 films [Batman Begins and TDK], Bruce is still really torn between being Bruce and being Batman. The films use Rachel as a device to show us why Bruce would want to quit the Batman gig -- he could have a normal life, etc. In the comics, Batman is all about The Mission. He says, often, that Bruce is the mask and Batman is the real person. In these films, he's not yet at that point, but I think TDK has him positioned to get there.)

Anyway. Back to Harvey. I agree with Dana -- he wasn't really corrupted, as much as driven mad by Rachel getting blown up (as a result of his own plan to draw out the Joker).

My first comment after the movie ended was, "Oh my god. This entire movie was about a girl." And I mean it. Without the Harvey-Rachel-Bruce triangle, so much would have gone differently.

I know too much about the Batman canon to really be surprised by the twists of characters' fates, so I don't know how much that affects my view of what happens to Harvey. And I'm too cynical about public officials to accept the incorruptable label. They may not take bribes or anything overt like that, but they're only human. That's why I like so Batman so much, it's his own highly tuned brains and body that let him do what he does. Harvey is useful as the third leg of the triumvirat of Bad Guy Scarer, Bad Guy Capturer, and Bad Guy Convicter. I don't buy Harvey as the guy who will let Batman give up the cowl. Harvey on his own can't cope with the uniquely twisted weirdness that is Gotham.

To me, Two-Face is just his own human weakness made manifest. And making Harvey's corruption the Joker's ultimate goal again makes the Joker too powerful. Joker is brilliant and cunning, but I don't see him as that level of mastermind. Ras al Ghul is that kind of mastermind. Joker's unique terror is that his brilliance is bound with his madness and obsession.

I don't buy Harvey as the guy who will let Batman give up the cowl. Harvey on his own can't cope with the uniquely twisted weirdness that is Gotham.

Well, yeah. That was the heartbreaking thing about the movie -- Harvey was doomed to fail, and he took Bruce, Rachel, and Jim down with him. t edit By "took Bruce down with him," I mean that *Bruce* -- if not the viewers -- actually believed, for a dangerous moment, that he could give up the Batman gig and let Harvey do it.

And making Harvey's corruption the Joker's ultimate goal again makes the Joker too powerful. Joker is brilliant and cunning

Joker had no ultimate goal beyond utter chaos. Whatever happened along his path to serve those ends is what he used. Including Harvey.

Yeah, I definitely need to see the film again. While what you described, Tep, is pretty much what I remember from the comics and the way they did the animated series back in the early 90s-- but I remember being struck during the film about them playing up the "uncorruptable" aspects of Harvey's character.

I kind of wish Lewis was home tonight so I could watch it while a) all this stuff is swirling around in my brain and b) because I'm in the mood for it. Anyone want a twelve year-old boy? Moody, self-absorbed, and a bit of a git-- tried to sell him to the Gypsies but even they didn't want him.

I remember being struck during the film about them playing up the "uncorruptable" aspects of Harvey's character.

Probably because every time he was onscreen, the phrase "white knight" would be uttered three or four times, with meaningful pauses so the audience could remember that the movie was called the dark knight and solemnly appreciate the comparison being drawn.

(I wanted to like this movie so much more than I did, but the script let me down. The writers just didn't trust the core emotional story enough to let it stand on its own.)

the white knight thing did kind of bug me but not enough to ruin the movie for me.

Maybe it would have worked better for me if someone said Harvey "Gave a fuck when it wasn't his turn." because in its overall bleakness and rejection of institutional authority, it did send me to a "Wire" place. It took itself more seriously, though. (I really need the rest of those Gotham Central TPBs.)