Thank you Heath Ledger. Thank you Christian Bale. Thank you Christopher Nolan. Thank you.

I was incredibly impressed by Heath's performance, not nearly the same man I saw in "A Knight's Tale". He's up there with Hannibal Lecter in this movie, I do hope he get some sort of posthumous award for his performance.

You hit it spot on when you said the effects were visually overpowering, several times in the IMAX I was left sitting there blinking trying to figure WTF was going on, but in a good way...

Zombieguy:

Yes, movies don't get any better than this do they?

Jammy:

The only good thing about not seeing "The Dark Knight" at the IMAX was that I can experience it in that wonderful venue when I see it a second time? It has to be an experience that all such movies will be compared to for a long, long time.

One thing I want to disagree with a little bit is that it was that Batman took a back seat in this movie. In past movies this was the case (i.e. the Burton/Schumacher films, and the first film especially) but one of the things I loved about this was that everything was centered around Batman's story, and it actually had you rooting in a sense for Batman to become obsolete with Harvey Dent's arc. You knew the inevitable was coming, but you weren't looking forward to it as you would in most other movies, because the chaos and carnage were so bad.

And I felt uncomfortable, again, in a good way, whenever the Joker was onscreen. He was so creepy, in contrast to Nicholson's Joker, whom you wanted to see because he was more interesting and funny than Batman.

It was just brilliant.

I know it's a "comic book" movie, but is there any chance this might get consideration come Oscar time - as far as Picture, Director, Screenplay? Obviously Ledger is a strong candidate on his own, but I wonder what other categories this film might be strong enough in.

This is going to end up sounding more negative than I mean, but considering 'Star Wars' received Oscar nominations for Best Picture (thankfully losing to 'Annie Hall'), Best Director and Best Screenplay ("But I wanna go to Toshi Station!"), it's more than possible for 'The Dark Knight.'

The biggest problems I can see are a potential backlash against the movie's box office, and the fact that it will be long out of the theaters by the time Oscar voting/nominating is done. (Both 'Titanic' and 'Return of the King' were still in theaters and fresh in mind when they were nominated for all their awards.)

This is of course separate from the almost-foregone nomination that Heath Ledger will receive and possibly win.

Here's what sucks about the Oscar nom, nobody wants to beat the dead guy when competing for an award, even if you win you really lose.

That's true, but no one will beat him. He'll win, not only because his performance is one of the best of all time, but also the Academy will want the story it'll bring, cementing the legacy and all of that.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if it gets a Best Picture nod, and I agree wtih Chris that it'll probably get some technical nominations as well.

It is one juggernaut of a movie, though.

Well best supporting actor or actress can be pretty easy to win. Last year Tilda Swinton from Michale Clayton won and her performance wasn't that memorable. The mom from American Gangster was also nominated and she had like 3 lines in the whole movie. Although the men's division was a little tougher.

But was he even supporting? He seemed to play as large of a role as anyone in the film.

I'd place him in the Best Supporting Actor category. I'd say Christian Bale would be the lead actor for the film, and all of the others are supporting.

I don't know about that. Nicholas Cage has done pretty well and suffered no backlash since beating Massimo Troisi (Il Postino) in the '94 race.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea who Massimo Troisi is, and I'm sure most of America didn't either. But everybody knows the dude from Brokeback Mountain, so I think it would be a little different

I think I'll side with the Nasty One on this one, just because Heath Ledger's death was such a big story here, and Il Postino was way under the radar in mainstream terms by comparison.

But just going off of "the dead guy gets preference" rule, Channing, I'd say you are most correct. That's why I noted it was more the hype and the notoriety that Heath Ledger's death brought, and the high-profile nature of the film, rather than just him being dead.

Channing:

I think that The Academy will be highly motivated this year to have a film nominated for best picture that also was a gigantic success at the box office. The ratings for the Oscar presentation itself have dropped dramatically over the years, in part due to the fact that the best movies have made a relatively small amount of money. Simply put, I have a sneaky feeling that "The Dark Knight" will be remembered very well when the ballots are cast.

And it should be.

Joe Shearer:

Regardless of the category that Ledger is eventually nominated in, it is hard to imagine a performance that will exceed his. For example, after seeing Charlize Theron's overpowering performance in "Monster" (2003), and Daniel Day-Lewis' sensational turn in last year's "There Will Be Blood," there was little realistic doubt that they would both win the top award. I feel the same about Ledger.

From a strictly selfish standpoint, I hope he is nominated in the Supporting Actor Category. If Richard Jenkins is nominated for Best Actor for his heartbreaking performance in this year's incredible "The Visitor," I don't want a contest between him and Ledger. There may yet be a better performance than that given by Mr. Jenkins down the road, but it would be an injustice for these two phenomenal performances to be lumped in the same category. Additionally, while I agree with Chris concerning additional recognition for this great film, it truly wouldn't surprise me if it is nominated for more awards than any other release in 2008.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with Victory33's statement that the "best supporting actress can be pretty easy to win." In that regard, he pointed to last year's winner in "Michael Clayton," who was Ms. Tilda Swinton. That was a quality movie, and her performance as the cold hearted, calculating corporate lawyer trapped in her own web of sin was not only sensational but deserving of the award. (And I'm not saying that because I predicted it in my Pre-Oscar prognostications!)

Then last year must have been the weakest year in history. American Gangster's, Ruby Dee had like 3 lines in the movie and was given a courtesy nod. And Saoirse Ronan, the 12 year old, from Atonement was only in the first half hour of the movie. That is supporting in the most liberal sense of the word. The contest was really only between Blanchett and Swinton. And though they both played fine roles, neither knocked my socks off or remained in my mind like Ledger's role will. He at least was a semi-main character, and was on the screen for about half of the movie.

Maybe they need a best cameo or minor role award.

Victory33:

Actually, a little review of recent history would do damage to your theory. For example, Judi Dench won an Oscar for her supporting role in "Shakespeare in Love" (1998), and she had fewer scenes than Ms. Dee in "American Gangster." Likewise, William Hurt was nominated in a supporting role for "History of Violence" (2005), and he only had a brief (yet most memorable) role at the very end of this film.

On the other hand, you are dead on with your comments about Mr. Ledger. As I said in my review, I truly believe that Christian Bale's Batman was a supporting character to his Joker.

Christopher Lloyd:

The problem for both the Best Actor and Best Actress award historically is that they frequently occur in movies that were not likely to generate a mass audience. It's not that they weren't superb films, it's just that they were never going to become "Blockbuster" type films.

On the other hand, just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't speak to its quality. After all, such obvious drivel as "What Happens in Vegas" and "Stepbrothers" may make more money than any of the films nominated for Best Picture last year, but that still does not qualify them for anything other than the "Most Insipid" film of the year.

I thought Blanchett was OUTSTANDING in "I'm Not There," even though I'm not a huge fan of the film as a whole, and Swinton was pretty good too. I agree with Victory's comments on Ruby Dee, though. Thought she was a total courtesy nomination.

Bob, I think regarding William Hurt in History of Violence, he in the film a comparable amount to Ruby Dee in "Gangster," but he was so out there and his performance was so magnetic, that it didn't matter. Ruby Dee only had that one real scene, and I thought it was kind of hit or miss, obviously. Of course, I wasn't paying lots of attention to her when I saw the movie, and I was underwhelmed with it in general, so that may be rubbing off on her performance unfairly, I'll admit.

I do disagree with both of you about the Joker's role as compared to Batman's, because I still think it was Batman/Bruce Wayne's story and his movie (even if Ledger's performance overshadowed the whole movie), and he did not take a backseat to Ledger the way Michael Keaton did to Nicholson back in '89.

They should actually have a parallel ceremony for the Razzies instead, and make it an official part of the Academy. Though, really, do we want the proceedings to go on any more than they already do?

They can add "Most Insipid" to the list of awards, though.

Anyone going to see Dark Knight a second time? I know I am - hopefully this weekend.

Frayed knot, at least this weekend. Between riding my bike and seeing 'Mamma Mia' (again), I know I won't have time.

I was really considering it, but I don't think I'll have time this weekend anyway.

I do know I'll be wearing out that DVD when the time comes, though.

Christopher Lloyd:

I am absolutely in full agreement about adding a "Most Insipid Film" award beginning with this year's Oscar ceremony. In that regard, I want to open and close the nominations with Mike Myers' "The Love Guru." Any objections?

Joe Shearer:

While I certainly agree concerning your appraisal of William Hurt's brief performance in "History of Violence," my only point was that it was as brief as Ms. Dees. As for her nomination, maybe there are times when it is justifiable to nominate someone for their collective body of work. After all, after years of being snubbed for such monumental performances as "Hud" (1963) and "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), how else do you account for the fact that Paul Newman's only Oscar was for the rather pedestrian "The Color of Money

Oh, absolutely. I was just agreeing with Victory's assertion that she got an unofficial lifetime achievement Oscar nom.