I always thought his suit and makeup looked great in this movie, all he needed was the bulging yellow eye and more flashbacks (plus more of the anti-hero end to him over extreme villain) and he would have been perfect.
The different animal print styles clashing against each other just looks so kino.
I think the reason it looks so awkward is a mixture of these two
how did he keep his fricked up eye so moisturized
>...and then I woke up
The eye looks too intact and really should have just been removed entirely. No eye patch, just an empty cavity. Then there's the comically-accurate aesthetic of the burn being straight down the middle, but that's the problem because this is a movie, and a more realistic take on the material at that.
They really should've had the burns spread at an angle, almost entirely on his scalp, while leaving most of his chin unscathed, similar to The Hound from Game of Thrones. I think maybe Nolan and his producers didn't realize that "Two Face" is a metaphor for his character, and that the burns are just a comical representation, similar to The Bat-Man himself, and didn't need to be looking like Face/Off.
Well there is literally a scene were Gordon and Harvey discuss the metaphor, so I don't think they misunderstood that. I think I heard they had more realistic burns in early versions but it tested poorly or they changed their minds or something and went with the skeletor instead.
I wish Nolan didn’t kill him off in this movie, it would have been kino as frick having Batman’s final major enemy be one of his own making and possibly redeemed at the end.
They unironically could have given Joker more screentime and ended the movie with him being captured and gloating about how he converted Harvey Dent to evil. That would have made the third movie with Two Face as the main villain, however you'd need another secondary antagonist to fill in the time between.
I think his death functioned well and was the only decent part of TDKR. That being that Gordon (and by extension, Batman) are effectively exactly what Joker called them out to be; schemers. They unintentionally via ignorance and arrogance created a context for Harvey Dent to suffer, murdered him, then lied about the circumstances and used his death to manipulate Gotham City.
The only major issue is that this is all rendered moot because of the main plot and ending of TDKR. So by the end of the "trilogy" nobody learned anything and nobody changed or developed, except Bruce, who learned to stop harping on his mommy and daddy dying and start pounding away at that pussycat, or something. All at the behest of Alfred, a man who did nothing for Bruce's entire life except... try to manipulate him into being exactly what he wanted him to be, which was essentially just a 1:1 parody of Thomas Wayne.
Goddamn I hate the Nolanverse so much.
How about when he throws a big dramatic crybaby scene and straight up abandons Bruce and leaves when he finally decides he's going to stop bane from nuking the entire city
I actually enjoyed that scene, if for no other reason because he fricking disappeared from the rest of the movie and didn't show up again until that moronic epilogue. Also the scene was Oscar-worthy. Truly, Michael Caine is a master of his craft.
The plot of the third movie should have been essentially Dark Victory: Two Face taking out the mob and establishing himself as the ruler of Gotham's underworld with the rest of the rogues.
As you say, Bruce having to confront a final enemy that he personally created would have been kino.
How is that shit fair or unbiased at all when he’s the one who decides when and who is subject to the coin flip, as well as the conditions of each possible outcome?
I think that's the point. He's just mad by that point, the coin is just an excuse. It's a game, essentially. Like
No Country For Old Men did it better
mentions. The only difference is that in the analogous scenes when James Gordon and Carla Jean are questioning "the game" the latter doesn't have some guilt-ridden psychopath in a bat costume with a goofy voice modulator to swoop down and save her.
But ultimately the movies and their respective coin-flipping criminals are thematically very different. The Dark Knight had no existential themes, and Anton Chigurh was not a fallen hero. So they're pretty much pointless to compare.
DID YOU KNOW - Two-Face was originally known as Harvey Kent until DC editors realized he shared a surname with Superman after fans wrote in asking about it.
why does batman just introduce himself to two-face in this scene instead of taking him out from behind? his gun wasn't pointed at anyone and he had no idea batman was there yet, it was completely dark too so he could have just walked up behind him and taken him out
I think his death functioned well and was the only decent part of TDKR. That being that Gordon (and by extension, Batman) are effectively exactly what Joker called them out to be; schemers. They unintentionally via ignorance and arrogance created a context for Harvey Dent to suffer, murdered him, then lied about the circumstances and used his death to manipulate Gotham City.
The only major issue is that this is all rendered moot because of the main plot and ending of TDKR. So by the end of the "trilogy" nobody learned anything and nobody changed or developed, except Bruce, who learned to stop harping on his mommy and daddy dying and start pounding away at that pussycat, or something. All at the behest of Alfred, a man who did nothing for Bruce's entire life except... try to manipulate him into being exactly what he wanted him to be, which was essentially just a 1:1 parody of Thomas Wayne.
Goddamn I hate the Nolanverse so much.
Taking Dent in quietly would reveal his nature, along with Bamham and Gordon's failure. Can't have that, can we? No, Gotham City must be manipulated into what we believe it should be. We don't actually trust the people, so we should trick them into acting exactly how we want them to, that is to our benefit. Ultimately Batman and Gordon have no motivation to remove crime entirely or create paradise in the form of Gotham, because then both of their characters would be rendered pointless. So they want control, and they're willing to sacrifice anybody but the people they're personally closest to in order to achieve it. This theme is of course is acknowledged by the famous line; "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and by Gordon's guilt in the opening act of TDKR. >tl;dr
Harvey Dent was a dead man long before he flipped his first coin.
>Andy Serkis' Alfred actually was a bong glowie and not some pussyfooting moron obsessed with tangerines
It's so weird, I liked a lot of the elements in The Batman, like this interpretation of Alfred, The Penguin, and the titular Batman, but I can't remember a goddamn thing about the movie itself.
sneed.
You can learn to flip coins to constantly get the result you want
What if Two Face used a random number generator that was seeded from space noise?
ack
Heads or tails, call it.
how did he keep his fricked up eye so moisturized
No Country For Old Men did it better
>...and then I woke up
I always thought his suit and makeup looked great in this movie, all he needed was the bulging yellow eye and more flashbacks (plus more of the anti-hero end to him over extreme villain) and he would have been perfect.
The different animal print styles clashing against each other just looks so kino.
People always talk about Ledger, but Two Face really carried the movie hard. His fall from grace is the best part hands down
I wonder what happened to Aaron Eckhart. Him and Gary Oldman were great in this film. They put Christian Bale and Michael Cocaine to shame.
>From the director of Die Hard 2
HE'S CALLIN' SHOTS, BURNIN' LOCAL, AND LAYIN' BRICKS
>dies within ten minutes
Did they have to go so overboard with the burns? It was almost comical.
I think the reason it looks so awkward is a mixture of these two
The eye looks too intact and really should have just been removed entirely. No eye patch, just an empty cavity. Then there's the comically-accurate aesthetic of the burn being straight down the middle, but that's the problem because this is a movie, and a more realistic take on the material at that.
They really should've had the burns spread at an angle, almost entirely on his scalp, while leaving most of his chin unscathed, similar to The Hound from Game of Thrones. I think maybe Nolan and his producers didn't realize that "Two Face" is a metaphor for his character, and that the burns are just a comical representation, similar to The Bat-Man himself, and didn't need to be looking like Face/Off.
Well there is literally a scene were Gordon and Harvey discuss the metaphor, so I don't think they misunderstood that. I think I heard they had more realistic burns in early versions but it tested poorly or they changed their minds or something and went with the skeletor instead.
>comical
It's literally a comic book character.
>comical.
I don't know, it is a comic book movie. I rolled with it
I wish Nolan didn’t kill him off in this movie, it would have been kino as frick having Batman’s final major enemy be one of his own making and possibly redeemed at the end.
They unironically could have given Joker more screentime and ended the movie with him being captured and gloating about how he converted Harvey Dent to evil. That would have made the third movie with Two Face as the main villain, however you'd need another secondary antagonist to fill in the time between.
I think his death functioned well and was the only decent part of TDKR. That being that Gordon (and by extension, Batman) are effectively exactly what Joker called them out to be; schemers. They unintentionally via ignorance and arrogance created a context for Harvey Dent to suffer, murdered him, then lied about the circumstances and used his death to manipulate Gotham City.
The only major issue is that this is all rendered moot because of the main plot and ending of TDKR. So by the end of the "trilogy" nobody learned anything and nobody changed or developed, except Bruce, who learned to stop harping on his mommy and daddy dying and start pounding away at that pussycat, or something. All at the behest of Alfred, a man who did nothing for Bruce's entire life except... try to manipulate him into being exactly what he wanted him to be, which was essentially just a 1:1 parody of Thomas Wayne.
Goddamn I hate the Nolanverse so much.
I rewatched them recently and God damn Alfred does not shut the frick up about BRUCE COME HOME PLEASE IM SCARED YOULL GET HURT 🙁
To this day I still do not understand why he burned Rachel's letter.
Wow, youse not smart.
Explain it to me, Doc.
If you don’t understand without an explaintion you won’t understand with one.
How about when he throws a big dramatic crybaby scene and straight up abandons Bruce and leaves when he finally decides he's going to stop bane from nuking the entire city
I actually enjoyed that scene, if for no other reason because he fricking disappeared from the rest of the movie and didn't show up again until that moronic epilogue. Also the scene was Oscar-worthy. Truly, Michael Caine is a master of his craft.
The plot of the third movie should have been essentially Dark Victory: Two Face taking out the mob and establishing himself as the ruler of Gotham's underworld with the rest of the rogues.
As you say, Bruce having to confront a final enemy that he personally created would have been kino.
How is that shit fair or unbiased at all when he’s the one who decides when and who is subject to the coin flip, as well as the conditions of each possible outcome?
I think that's the point. He's just mad by that point, the coin is just an excuse. It's a game, essentially. Like
mentions. The only difference is that in the analogous scenes when James Gordon and Carla Jean are questioning "the game" the latter doesn't have some guilt-ridden psychopath in a bat costume with a goofy voice modulator to swoop down and save her.
But ultimately the movies and their respective coin-flipping criminals are thematically very different. The Dark Knight had no existential themes, and Anton Chigurh was not a fallen hero. So they're pretty much pointless to compare.
DID YOU KNOW - Two-Face was originally known as Harvey Kent until DC editors realized he shared a surname with Superman after fans wrote in asking about it.
>Tell your boy it's going to be all right, Gordon. Lie, like I lied
pure kinography. literal chills everytime i hear this theme
why does batman just introduce himself to two-face in this scene instead of taking him out from behind? his gun wasn't pointed at anyone and he had no idea batman was there yet, it was completely dark too so he could have just walked up behind him and taken him out
See
Taking Dent in quietly would reveal his nature, along with Bamham and Gordon's failure. Can't have that, can we? No, Gotham City must be manipulated into what we believe it should be. We don't actually trust the people, so we should trick them into acting exactly how we want them to, that is to our benefit. Ultimately Batman and Gordon have no motivation to remove crime entirely or create paradise in the form of Gotham, because then both of their characters would be rendered pointless. So they want control, and they're willing to sacrifice anybody but the people they're personally closest to in order to achieve it. This theme is of course is acknowledged by the famous line; "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and by Gordon's guilt in the opening act of TDKR.
>tl;dr
Harvey Dent was a dead man long before he flipped his first coin.
Jeremy Irons was a superior Alfred and commanded from the bat cave instead of stamping around blubbering like a pussy every other scene.
>Andy Serkis' Alfred actually was a bong glowie and not some pussyfooting moron obsessed with tangerines
It's so weird, I liked a lot of the elements in The Batman, like this interpretation of Alfred, The Penguin, and the titular Batman, but I can't remember a goddamn thing about the movie itself.
Google
>Cop flips coin