A little bit of everything..

2012...

2008-08-22T10:23:00.006-03:00

Well..so now, a pending deal is US troops will be out of Iraq by 2012 and out of cities' limits by June 30th 2009. So another 4 years of this crusade for democracy. It has been an ongoing war for the past 5 years. An estimate of the casualties as of August 2007 was around 1 033 000, an average close to 20 000 deaths per month. That's even more than the Rwanda genocide. So once again, another conflict with the Middle East. This time, religion is not the focus point. Remember the Crusades launched by the Church in the Middle Ages in order to Christianize the land? I believe we are doing the same..
Back in those times, the Church had power over the State. The Church was above everything and nothing was higher then it. There has always been a war between the two to have power so that the State may have power without having to go through the Church and its religious beliefs. It was also looking to bring the Christian religion to every corner of the world. So, they started doing Crusades in the Middle East, more precisely Jerusalem to take control of this city because it's sacred and other religious bullshit. There was a lot of a casualties and it went on for a long time with multiples crusades.

At the end of the Middle Ages, the State got stronger and stronger and overpowered the Church. So, State got stronger and Church weaker. Nowadays, nobody cares for what the religion is saying. It said no to gay marriages and protected sex. We are seeing a better openness towards gay marriages and sexual protection is starting at an early age.

So, after the US won the Cold War against the USSR, it was a win for democracy. It was democracy vs. communism. Communism fell. The goal for the USA from there on was to bring democracy to every country in the world.
Where I'm getting at, the quest for the American war is to bring democracy to the rest of the world, in the same fashion the Church used to do it. By force. Democracy is power to the people. So enforcing democracy upon a population and killing the leader goes against what it stood for correct? Enforcing liberty? It's the same for the crusades in the Middle Ages. Christianity is supposed about love and tolerance..if I remember what I was taught in first grade. Let's enforce the religion of love with wars and killing. Something's not right hey?

There's a small twist of religion doh. Bush made some references towards his religion and it was in his soul to bring liberty to the Iraqi freedom. They are still very intolerant versus the Muslim community. So there's like 2 ongoing wars: the one to bring democracy everywhere and another with the Muslims community.

Did we find new ways to deal with the indifference we might have with another ideology/religion? No. We are still using fighting to deal with stuff. You walk on my territory, I kill you. You are not thinking like me, I kill you. Imagine if we lived like that inside our own society. I would be standing on a god damn mountain with sniper riffles and rocket launchers all around me you fucking left wingers. Are we more sophisticated? No. We have cool new technologies like TV and Internet. We are trying to be more sophisticated but we're still the same Europeans from back then but with more advanced techniques.

I know I've talked about something similar to this. I'm just trying to show by different ways, we are not the all that advanced in term of thinking and acting. In inventions, yes we are, and by far. If you compare with the caveman, of course we are more advanced. We are not trying conquer everything like we used. In certain ways, we might have more tolerance for different people and such, but not that much. We have opened our horizons on certain things...such as regarding homosexuals. Yes, there are not seen as equals everywhere around the globe but that won't come overnight. But there's a lot of space left for improvement. When are we going to stop being scared of differences and come to terms of accepting them? Is it going to take a nuclear disaster and a lot of casualties to realize it? To cooperate together? To work as one? We need to understand how they think and respect their way of thinking without clouding our judgment with our ideology and emotions. That's not in a close future..somebody has to do the first step and neither knows how to walk yet..

Be careful...

2008-08-20T09:38:00.006-03:00

...baby in the car. Yesterday, I was driving and I saw the kind of little sign that said:"Baby aboard: Be Careful". Thank God it was there!! I was going to ram the shit out of that Ford. The message really prevented me. I mean..what's the fucking point of this? Is it really going to prevent a bad driver to slow down and drive well? So..here are a couple I have remarked.

"Truck makes wide turn". No shit. I don't need a sign telling me your 16 wheels are going to make a wide turn. It's common sense nay? Because, sometimes, I think of cutting inside to pass it on the turn but I see the sign, and I stop.

"Beware children playing". Damn! I thought it was open season to hit children with the car. I had a scoring system and everything. 20 pts for each individual kid, 40 pts for combo and 100 pts when playing the skip. Oh well..at least the sign was there to prevent for mass murdering children.

"No left turn on red light". What?!?! It does not make sense!!! We should be allowed to turn left on the red light. If we can turn right, why not left? There's no danger there as long you make a complete stop. That is the key problem. People don't make complete stops anymore. But, the sign is there to remind you: do not turn left on the red light.

"Only authorized vehicles" You know on a 4 lane highway, there are certain places you can go through and turn around? Well, the other day, I was driving and my friend started vomiting blood so I was going to turn around there BUT I am not an authorized vehicle. So I continued another 10 clicks and then turned back. If it wasn't for the sign, I would have made huge mistakes and ramble society's foundations.

"Railroad ahead" It doesn't say it but you see the railroad on the board. You know..I have a hard time identifying railroads. Before I saw these signs, I use to think they were bars for gymnasts. Really. They got me on that one.

"Deer crossing" You know the sign with a deer running? OK, news to me: wild animals lives in the forest. I was so certain they were living with us, in the urban area. With this now, I know that when I'm driving on the highway in middle of fucking nowhere except for miles of trees, deers and moose can come out.

So, I guess I can't turn left on a red light to hit children or to beat the shit out of a car with the special sign. If I am in the forest, can not hit a deer or try to pass a turning 18 wheeler. I now know what is a railroad and where animals live. Finally, I am not an authorized vehicle. I did not know this.

Martini...

2008-08-19T21:36:00.006-03:00

"A Martini, shaken not stirred."It is tagged to Bond movies for generations to come. I have been a huge 007 fan since the game Goldeneye came out. I didn't really know what it was before but since then, crazy about it. Now, I have started to read Ian Flemming's novel in order they've came out to see if it's close to the storyline. The first of the series is Casino Royale, published 55 years ago. There's been a couple of adaptation of this novel but I will compare it with the latest (2006).

I must say, the movie and book are very similar. The theme is the same, the mood and the characters are the same. No bickering with Q and Moneypenny. Of course, this movie relaunched the franchise and takes a new turn on the psychology of James Bond, which I think is closer to the novels from what I feel with Flemming's instead of the invincible 007 of the movie up until Die Another Die. There is of course some minor differences, more on the action sequence since action for the '50s is different from now. Besides that, really close.

It has redefined the word adaptation. It took a 1953 book and kept the plot, the themes and everything and updated it to 2006 with cell phones, texting, laptop and new technologies that are closer to reality then fantasy (remember Q's ghetto blaster?). Also, in the book, the game was baccarat and in Casino Royale (2006), it was poker. Poker is THE gambling game right now. It was the first time the movies made a reference to 9/11 and if my memory serves correctly, it was one of the rare time it cited an important event that took place, except the Cold War, which was a theme throughout the series. Gutsy move by the producing crew.

What makes the movie and novel so special is the absence of imminent world doom. There is no threat that the universe will explode. It could happen if a team of cloned Brett Favre plays against another team of cloned Brett Favre but Favre is not in the movies thank God. I always felt it takes away this possible reality when the world could explode. Instead, it is more down to earth with money and trying to capture a banker/terrorist. Of course, I'm not saying that's how it is..playing poker against a world banker for terrorists. But, between that and somebody hiding in a fake volcano lair, I'll go with Le Chiffre.

The Bond girl was more then hot and sexy. She was smart and had some importance in the movie instead of being really dumb and helpless. Yes, time has evolved since the first movies but they were always seen as being dependable of James Bond no matter what. Here, she is the mistress of puppets. I hope in the next one, she'll still have significance instead of tits n' ass. But she has to be beautiful...;-) Vesper was so mysterious in the novel. Eva Green's beauty really gives that impression. She had to show some interest in Bond in her disinterest in him and she nailed him...I mean it.
The way Daniel Craig pictured 007 on screen was excellent. Instead of already knowing everything in the world and being an expert, he's extremely cocky and learning along the way. It is fun to see a hero really struggle but still overcome it and gather the experience. He is more human. I won't debate now since it was only one movie. We'll see if he can keep it up. One thing I didn't like was the way he was buffed. I don't see that being pertinent to Bond.

Again, we are seeing the goal of future Bond movies. Forget the fantasy plots, the fantasy villains, they want to go to another level. Staying closer to home and something more feasible. I am liking this. I also see some similarities between the relaunch of this franchise and the Batman one. Both are going away from the fantasy and surreal and getting closer to the psychology of the characters and humanizing them. I am loving it...even more then McDonald's.

Ah. And for those who say Daniel Craig is not good for James Bond because he is blond, I say fuck off. 'Nuff said.

Bismillah...

2008-08-17T10:12:00.006-03:00

..we will not let you go! If you are a music fan, you should recognize this lyric from Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. Yesterday, we were driving around and my sister in-law was picking the music so she chose Bohemian. As we were singing, she said a wrong lyric. Instead of Poor Boy...she said Pool Boy. Well, here is Queen's new hit: Pool Boy Rhapsody.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and breathe-
Im just a pool boy,i need the sympathy-
Because Im easy come,easy go,
A little high,little low,
Anyway the wind blows, really does matter to me,
To me
Mama,just drowned a man,
Put a bag upon his head,
Pushed him down,now hes dead,
Mama,life had just begun,
But now Ive gone and thrown it all away-
Mama ooo,
Didnt mean to make you cry-
If I am back again this time tomorrow-
Carry on,carry on,as if everything really matters- Too late,my time has come,
Sends shivers down my spine-
Water is cold all the time,
Goodbye everybody-Ive got to go-
Gotta leave you all behind and clean the pooool-
Mama ooo- (any way the wind blows)
I do want to die,
I sometimes wish Id never been born at all- I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Michalel Phelps,Michael Phelps,
Michael Phelps Michael Phelps
Michael Phelps and steroids are negative
But Im just a pool boy and nobody loves me-
Hes just a pool boy from a poolside family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Arnemetia! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
Arnemetia! we will not let you go-let him
Arnemetia! we will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go let me go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
Arnemetia has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-
So you think you can push me and spit in my pool-
So you think you can hurt me and hit me with a stool -
Oh baby-cant do this to me baby-
Just gotta get out-just gotta get right outta here- Everything really matters,
Anyone can see,
Everything really matters-,everything really matters to me, Any way the wind blows....

So there it is..Pool Boys...just for you. Original lyrics were taken from www.lyricsfreak.com but the modified came from me!;)
PS: Since I did not post the last 2-3 days, I shall post back again tonight!

Ma' ....

2008-08-13T22:03:00.007-03:00

...the meatloaf! FUCK!" Watta scene in Wedding Crashers with Will Ferrell making a surprise cameo. I know that his way of doing comedy can sometime become annoying, especially when he yells too much. He presents simple humour, which is good to have once in awhile. Ferrell is only as good as the script permits him to be unfortunately. He's not the kind of actor who can distinguish himself from a movie even if the script sucked.
One comedy that came out this summer was Step Brother which featured Ferrell and John C. Rieilly. I must say in this movie, Ferrell was great. Him and Rieilly seem to have a connection on screen and one wouldn't be funny without the other. If I recall correctly, Ferrell doesn't yell too much and really goes all out. He even gives a lot of space to his co-stars, which he does rarely I think. It's probably one of the funniest movie I've seen in a while.

Anyways, while I was watching, some kids under the age of 13 for sure, were seating nearby. I was perplexed. Do they understand the humor on screen, the jokes, etc.? This is a R rate movie and for good reasons as well! It's very vulgar and not suited for kids. They should just rent Tommy Boy or Coneheads. Back then, most comedies were PG-13, even up to a couple years ago. Which is better? Pg-13 or R?

PG-13: Evidently, when a comedy is under 13, you can catch a bigger audience. So, for studio producers, and for actors too I presume, more money! You build a fan base and you get fame and fortune, if you're good. You don't flirt with the danger of falling into easy sex jokes and pushing the limit too far, like some are saying about Tropic of Thunder. But, you can still miss the point and do some really stupid and silly jokes which the audience may feel you are taking them for stupid. For example, Dodgeball was an excellent PG-13 movie. It was funny and simple with good characters...well, usual characters I should say. Vince"cool guy"Vaughn and Ben"I'm so dumb"Stiller. They are funny but it's always the same characters coming out. Stiller is more versatile then Vaughn doh. Vaughn as to be cool on screen and Stiller has to be picked on or very stupid.

One major problem with these kind of movies, it does not give the chance to the people involved in the movie to push the envelope and let their creativity go to the maximum. You're probably putting some stuff aside to make sure you get the rating wanted and you take different routes and maybe the one suited for matures over 18 would of been better. We never know of course! When, and if, you restrain yourself from doing something, the result's not going to be as good.

R: With this rating, everything is available out there. Of course, majority of R rated take sex for subject. The way they use the subject makes it good or damn awful. Knocked Up and Superbad consisted pretty much of the same crew. But, the way they used sex as a subject was different but equally good. People have said Knocked Up was not that good..but I found out very funny and still a nice story in the end instead of just being about sex. The danger of this rating is if you go too far, you may offend people. Me, Myself and Irene was one funny movie! But it did hurt a lot people and they have voiced their anger. From that point, it was not viewed as funny and that's a gamble you take when you push the limits.The bad side. Going too far, of course, and missing the point completely. Not reaching to a bigger audience but under thirteen can view it if they're accompanied by a parent. So it's pretty much up to the folks to decide. Another big problem for these type of comedies, some people don't like vulgarity and can get easily, easily offended. So even less people attend it. Also, majority of adults over 35 won't view these type of movies because sex jokes doesn't appeal them, finds it stupid and "youngish" to laugh at those type of jokes. In the end, less people=less money. Never good for business.

My pick: R. I just love to see actors daring to push the limits or to tip-toe it. Like Wedding Crashers was hilarious and that movie being PG-13 would just not have been the same at all. Sometimes, comedies of this genre flops. You can't always make good movies like John Cazale (see Fredo Corleone), you got to lose sum to win sum...

Gladiators...

2008-08-12T12:33:00.006-03:00

MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS! OOhhh...Russell Crowe, you heart-filled revenge General. You showed that Commodus how to be a man and to honor his father's wish. Good movie.

Anyways, the other day, I was reading on an UFC fight that fellow Canadian George St-Pierre, a.k.a GSP had won to defend his title. I have never watched an UFC fight since I find it pretty much stupid to watch men in tights fight in a steel cage but I would never tellm that to the fighters. So, I decided to Youtubed his last fight versus a certain Jon Fitch. It was brutal. GSP destroyed his opponent with anything possible: elbow, knee, fist, kicks, etc. And they were landed either in the ribs or to the head, to a point they can literally sit atop the guy and drill some punches.

There's no denying the athletes participating in these contest are of extraordinary physical and psychological shape. The different techniques they used as well are quite impressive going from wrestling through various martial arts and having to switch from one another depending on the situation. I salute their bravery, patience and hard work to the peek they have reached.

The problem I have is the lack of protection these fighters have. During the first couple of years of the UFC, the fight could go and on without any interventions. Almost everything was permitted except a couple of things which were frowned upon, for example, hitting the family jewel, biting, pulling hair, etc. Now, you can not do those moves. So dirty fighters, BEWARE!Fighting in a cage? No gear to protect themselves? Get real. Yes, boxing is hitting with gloves. It's way safer then it used to be and you can only use padded hands, which still hurts like shit I'm sure. The goal of this sport/entertaining spectacle is do destroy your opponent by any means necessary, except ones mention above and people are raving about it. It's gaining in popularity at lightning speed.

We are still in the Roman days but with better technology and worldwide diffusion of human battering. At least, killing people to entertain the mob (not the mob Sopranos style) is now frowned upon and against the law. We are still fighting in the Middle East and they're still a battle with religion. State has taken the place of the church; crusades for Christianity has been replace for crusades in the name of democracy. Somethings will never change nay?

Just sit back and think about it for a second. People go craaaaaaaazy for fights in a hockey game, same thing for boxing and now, UFC. Is it something that will always stay the same for mankind? The possible destruction of a member of the society brings entertainment and satisfaction? Every sport events is based on the Roman Colosseum (which we still call the Coliseum for certain ice surfaces). Entertainment in the middle and lowest point, the mob looking down.

Except, UFC fighters are the gladiators of our era. Fighting for entertainment and their lives. They maybe don't face death as direct but he is in the corner waiting. Slaves to the cage and the lights. Slaves to our need for blood. Where is the Spartacus to free themselves from their masters? Not you Kirk Douglas...I know it's a bit extreme but I'm just trying to show the brutality and the lack of moral in it. It made progress since it's beginning. They're still some work to do. Like everything else in the world, something extreme will be needed for some changes. Mark my word, when somebody will die in the cage, changes will be rolling down. Let's hope it doesn't get to that point and that Spartacus will wake up before then...

I love you...

2008-08-10T22:05:00.009-03:00

...George "Dubya" Bush. Anytime I hear and see you speak, you bring a smile to my face. You have such an innocent look and you truly don't know what the hell's going on in your country or the consequences of your actions. You've probably drawn more plans to get Damon and Jeter for your precious Texas Rangers without selling the farm then ways to get out of Iraq.

But, there's something nobody can take from you my precious Dubya. You truly reflect your people. You're not a phony like Bill Clinton who could look you in the eye and make you believe he wasn't there. I'm going to try and find 5 qualities you have that are not looked upon.

1)Having education close to the heart. Who could deny that? You were told of attacks on the Twin Towers and instead of putting aside the education of a classroom, you fulfilled your duty to these children.

2)Knowing how to have fun. I just saw an interview you gave on NBC since it's the Olympics in Beijing and boy, I've never seen you smile like that! You were playful, talking about your attendance at the sanction Christian church and the hand shake you gave in the end was nothing short of powerful and manly.

You also enjoy your ranch in Crawford, Texas. You find it important to take time off and then tackle issues, even if it's too late. At least you had fun and you're back fresh.

3)Always challenging yourself.

'Nuff said.

4)Staying true to your hometown. Usually, when somebody gets into political power, they drift away from what is unique to them, like their accents, routines, hobbies, etc. You have stayed true to all of those. You're still the same little guy who was raised in Houston Texas. That's what makes you special, I tip my hat to ya.

5)Being persistent. After 9/11, the American people were crying out for justice. You served it right by chasing Oussama in Afghanistan. He wasn't there, of course, since you covered every inch square of their territory. Evidently, he had to be in Iraq smoking cigars with Saddam. The International Community didn't see the motivation to invade Iraq. But you did and acted on it anyways. With reason. Now, one of the biggest assassin in the world is gone and we can sleep a little safer tonight. Thank you Georgie.

You have changed the meaning of being President of the United States of America. A normal guy can keep it real, become the world's most powerful man and still enjoy simple things in life.

Tom Sawyer...

2008-08-09T11:17:00.008-03:00

Has anyone ever sang Tom Sawyer from Rush on Rock Band? It's fucking hard! We jammed out last night me and my buddies (Pat, Matt, Justino and Johnny) with beer, of course, and had a crazy time. I sang most of the time and a little bit of drums. First song was Tom Sawyer and I fucked up baaaaaaaad. It's hard to control the pitch. But then, I got Dani California and Learn to Fly, got 5 stars and 100% baby! Woohoo! It was funny to see everybody all concentrated on the screen and timing for the little blocks of different colors coming along.Anyways, it got me thinking on how this game, and the different Guitar Heroes, had an impact on today's culture and gaming itself. If my memory serves right, the two first editions of Guitar Heroes contained no master recording of the songs and were all covers, except for the bonus songs but are not really popular compared to the other songs in the game. Then Guitar III came out and it was 50/50 for master recordings. Rock Band came out and contained around 85-90% of master recordings. Now that's a big difference. I'm pretty sure the follow-up to both games are going to be 100% masters. Also, it's only with Rock Band can you play the drums and do the vocal. It's confirmed that Guitar IV's gonna do the same thing.

What would be the rock industry without the creators of this new genre of gaming? I mean, it gives the bands access to an even bigger ensemble of people and chances are they will discover new songs. For myself, I've always been a fan of rock and I've discovered some bands for which I was not all that familiar at first and now, I can't get enough of! It basically saved the rock industry for years to come. I wouldn't be surprise if they would integrate other instruments in it. How about a Jazz Band? It would be cool!

The first gaming console I owned and played was NES. Watta classic with Duck Hunt and Super Mario Bros.! In that form, and until N64, you were controlling somebody on the screen. You were not part of the game as much. Then, Goldeneye came out on N64 and for me, it was my first time experiencing first-person shooter view. It puts you in the game! Did I ever love this game! Same thing for sports game I find. You get to make the trades and do your own team. For NHL 09, guess what's coming out? You get to follow one player and make him to the pros by just playing that player. I believe they've done that for the latest FIFA Euro Cup.

Then, the Nintendo Wii came out. That really revolutionazied gaming. With the sensors getting your movements, like Wii Sports with tennis, you are right there! What better experience then to be the game instead of being part of! Now with Rock Band, you are the band. Nobody but you and the music!!

What's next for gaming? What's the next step? Are we going to see a hockey game where you receive the hockey stick and you can wind up for a slap shot? You'll get a gun instead of using a controller? That would be awesome if you ask me. My worry is if kids get too much into the games, they could lose touch of reality. In my days, you knew it was a game when you see a little guy jump around on toads and collect coins and throw fire around with a special flower. But now, you're a band, you're a boxer, a tennis player, a secret agent shooting bad guys. Where's the pinnacle of gaming? Like Dilton in the Archie comics where he makes a machine you become the football player, will it ever get to that point?

Now...

2008-08-08T11:50:00.000-03:00

Seeing that this blog thing is getting popular and I am very curious and observational, I've decided to put my opinions and what not out there for everyone. To start things off, here are my observations on the movies, The Dark Knight.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Wow. Simple. The Dark Knight was truly a powerful movie and probably my favorite movie. Not only because of the action sequences which were jaw-dropping but more because Nolan has blended action with the emotions of the characters. Every actor in that movie were at their top performance. I've had the chance to watch it 4 times now (3 times in cinema, 1 bootleg) and each time, something else attracts me.

Of course, the first time, was the Joker. Ledger's performance for this role is nothing short of phenomenal. He makes it so believable, that was the perfect example of seeing the character and not the actor. For example, by comparing Nicholson's take on the Joker, in the Tim Burton version, you still see Jack Nicholson and bringing the Joker closer to comedy then gangster-ish. "Could somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in when a Batman dresses up like a BAT!?." I always thought he was good for the role because he's fit for these roles: The Shining, One Flew, The Departed, etc.

Ledger's take on the role was deeper. He still had that funny side of the Joker character but for once, it was secondary. The first thing which comes to mind when thinking about the performance was his nastyness and how he likes to fuck people in their mind before physically. He prefers to hurt the brain before the body and we see it clearly with his multiple stories for his scars and he just tells it to scare people before he kills.

Christian Bale's Batman/Bruce Wayne was again excellent. He wants to be normal and be without Batman but for not the good reasons, selfish reasons. He recognizes it and decides not to reveal his real identity. It's hard to know if he will ever be able to let go of Batman. After Rachel's death, why would he want to put Batman aside? His main reason to do so was to be with Rachel. Even if he meets up with another girl, I don't think she'll have the same affect on him. We shall see...

At first, I was surprised and not much of a fan for Aaron Eckhart to portrait Harvey Dent. After seeing the movie, he was superb. Right at the beginning, we see that he's got balls and he's not afraid of the mob. The appearance of Two-Face in the movie was gutsy. We have two vilains, just for a short awhile but still, and I've never been a fan of multiple vilains in a movie. I prefer it when it's only one and you can concencrate on the development between the hero and one vilain. But I liked how Two-Face was used to show that the Joker had won his bet by corrupting him and seeing the ugly side of somebody who was a symbol for greatness.

Katie Holmes vs. Maggie Gyllenhall. First question: why Gyllenhall wasn't casted for Batman Begins? I'm so happy that Holmes couldn't come back for the sequel, she can't be tough like Maggie was when she stood up agains the Joker. Holmes would never been able to do it as good. I had actually predicted her death in this movie.

Michael Caine and Gary Oldman are brilliant like secondary characters. They deserve much more credit for their work on this movie. As well for Morgran Freeman's Lucius Fox, I like seeing Freeman in secondary roles. Oldman is the one which stands out in the two movies. Compared to the Burton/Schumacher movies, where he was just a mere object, we see who is Jim Gordon and how desperate he is to get things cleaned up to the point to faking his own death! And then feeling the blame for Dents state of mind and that he has to save him, he's torned up!

The themes in the movie were good. Bruce Wayne questionning the role of Batman, what he's supposed to represent for Gotham. Now, Batman is more mature in the end of the movie. He knows what he's supposed to be: whatever Gotham needs him to be. Just like in Begins, Nolan takes one sentence that highlights the movie, if I may say. In Begins, "It's not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me"; in Dark Knight, "You either die a hero or live long enought to see yourself become the vilain." Nolan relies alot on catch phrases for his movies. It's not too much, like Roger Moore's m007, but just enough.

Is there going to be a third one in the franchise? Probably. Is it going to flop like history says for trilogies of this sort? I think not. The challenge for a 3rd Batman movie for Nolan will be to take away the shadow that will be casted on it because of Ledger's death and performance. Whoever the actor is for the vilain (no Johnny Depp...I'm begging you!), he will have tremendous pressure. But, after this one here, I don't doubt Nolan's talent one bit. I'll make one or two predictions:

1) Harvey Dent is not dead. He's never been declared officially dead. So everything is possible.
2) Forget the Penguin (if it's choosen, only Seymour Hoffman could do it in my eyes). Forget Catwoman (especially if its Angelina Jolie). Do not rule out the Riddler (No Johnny Depp PLEASE). And where's the Scarecrow? ;-)