The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[The Amazing Lee]

I thought this film was great. Amazing even.

I loved it.

 

[Dotten]

This movie was nothing like i expected it to be. I thought Nolan would go for the "illusion of realism" and have Wayne babble on about good and evil with the tea-spoon mentality. Boy was I wrong.

One of the most unrealistic movies ever made. And I loved it, I absolutely loved it. Ledger was good, but the Batman-character was what sold me completely. This is the Batman I grew up with and loved. Never has he been portrayed better.

Growing up I learned that the right choice most often was the unpopular choice. You can not pay attention to own image if you wish to do what is right. This movie captured that totally and it is therefore a masterpiece. 10/10

 

[p.marlowe]

Have you seen The Chaser? That **** is ****ing insane. That film goes beyond Old Boy. No American film comes even close to the brutality of Korean filmmaking--not even Saw or Hostel.

Koreans trumps the Americans in every way in the crime/thriller genre.

You will give TDK an F, when you compare it with The Chaser. /

So you believe that "The Dark Knight" sucked, yet in the poll above you voted a seven? Shouldn't you have given it a three, or something below a five?

And comparing "The Chaser" ( which I have not seen) is a little strange to me. You are saying that "The Chaser" blows "Saw" or "Hostel" away in terms of brutality. Okay, but I believe we are speaking about different genres of film. All that stuff sounds like horror-porn to me. I wouldn't put "The Dark Knight" in that section.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

After not likeing Batman Begins I went in expecting the worse but was plasantly suprised. I'd give it a 7 out of 10 that may raise to an 8.

What I liked:

Batman - Finally we can see him fight. We see him do more, this has become his entire life, he even spends his daylight hours saving people as Bruce Wayne.

Joker - I thought Ledger was great. I loved his way of talking. He sort of stumbled over his words but was still articulate. It was wierd to watch.

Two-Face- Eckhart was the back bone of this film. If anyone gets an oscar nod, then it should be hi. Only slight problem was that i felt the face scarring didn't seem to matter. His girlfriend died, that changed him.

Gordon- They really built on the relationship between Gordon and Batman. They are a fully functional team and Gordon really goes to bat for Batman.

Scarecrow - I loved the idea of this even if the execution wasn't great. The idea that these crazy people are always there.Rather than every so often one shows up only to be dispatched by movie's end. I just would have rather that it was more of a big deal.

Dislikes

Rachel- They never developed her character enough that the audience cared for her and they never developed her relationship with either Wayne or Dent for the audience to care that they care. So the death of a major character just felt like a plot point.

Alfred and Fox - They didn't really do anything. The scene with Alfred and Wayne talking about the Joker just kind of screamed "We need something for Michael to do." And Fox was just there to be the voice of the ordinary person when he says the mobile phone thing is wrong.

Plot diversions - Gordons death, which I can't imagine anybody buying, the excursion to China and the Mr Resse thing all seemed pointless to me. And the thing about Resse discovering who Batman is because of the tumbler just goes to point out how stupid it is no one else noticed.

Where I'm in the middle

9/11 - I mostly liked the parrallels drawn to 9/11 but thenthey annoyed me with the sonar thing. They went from sutle things to

"THE PATRIOT ACT IS EVIL> EVIL EVIL> EVIL EVIL."

 

[Jack O Lantern]

doublepost

 

[Cyrusbales]

I'm curious as to how people find the writing anything other than sub par? There are obvious narrative concerns, which many people pick up on, which stems from Nolan setting up a world built around physics and realism, which then is often abandonned.

BUT, the writing I'm talking about, is the interactions, every line is generally some big speech, yes I can understand why they would want to do this with the Joker, however it seems more like putting a nice fascia on top of a crumbling wall. We do have the same lines used repeatedly, which is a lazy writing technique designed to please the middle-of-the-road non-cinema fans, which upon any further examination, fails to stand up to any scrutiny.

Does Alfred have any lines that aren't little quipps or a message of morality in a nutshell? Same with with many of the characters throughout the film. We end up with lots of 'lines' for people to put in signitures on forums, or write on T-shirts etc, but nothing of actual substance there. This was the area I expected TDK to improve upon due to the absence of Goyer, however we got more of the same.

In conclusion, this film is aimed at the middle-of-the-road audience, who maybe know a little about cinema, but cannot be classed as knowledgable of the art form. For the intended audience, this film checks all boxes, mindless action, quotable lines, simplistic message, special effects, nothing too cerebral. It fills it's aims, however it seems to have generated illusions of Grandeur beyond belief!

Surely the biggest filmic event this year is complete copy of Metropolis that was found!

 

[Spade]

Surely the biggest filmic event this year is complete copy of Metropolis that was found!

No one important cares about Fritz Lang's film, even if the set pieces and camera angles are interesting.

That's right, I said it.

 

[Va3H]

I'm curious as to how people find the writing anything other than sub par? There are obvious narrative concerns, which many people pick up on, which stems from Nolan setting up a world built around physics and realism, which then is often abandonned.

BUT, the writing I'm talking about, is the interactions, every line is generally some big speech, yes I can understand why they would want to do this with the Joker, however it seems more like putting a nice fascia on top of a crumbling wall. We do have the same lines used repeatedly, which is a lazy writing technique designed to please the middle-of-the-road non-cinema fans, which upon any further examination, fails to stand up to any scrutiny.

Does Alfred have any lines that aren't little quipps or a message of morality in a nutshell? Same with with many of the characters throughout the film. We end up with lots of 'lines' for people to put in signitures on forums, or write on T-shirts etc, but nothing of actual substance there. This was the area I expected TDK to improve upon due to the absence of Goyer, however we got more of the same.

In conclusion, this film is aimed at the middle-of-the-road audience, who maybe know a little about cinema, but cannot be classed as knowledgable of the art form. For the intended audience, this film checks all boxes, mindless action, quotable lines, simplistic message, special effects, nothing too cerebral. It fills it's aims, however it seems to have generated illusions of Grandeur beyond belief!

Surely the biggest filmic event this year is complete copy of Metropolis that was found!

It is one thing to dislike a film, but entirely something else to bash the movie; when, in fact, all the statments you have said are unfounded and incorrect. Would not mindless action be something akin to John Woo's MI2, or is that just down-to-earth normal action?

 

[WorthyStevens]

I'm curious as to how people find the writing anything other than sub par? There are obvious narrative concerns, which many people pick up on, which stems from Nolan setting up a world built around physics and realism, which then is often abandonned.

BUT, the writing I'm talking about, is the interactions, every line is generally some big speech, yes I can understand why they would want to do this with the Joker, however it seems more like putting a nice fascia on top of a crumbling wall. We do have the same lines used repeatedly, which is a lazy writing technique designed to please the middle-of-the-road non-cinema fans, which upon any further examination, fails to stand up to any scrutiny.

Does Alfred have any lines that aren't little quipps or a message of morality in a nutshell? Same with with many of the characters throughout the film. We end up with lots of 'lines' for people to put in signitures on forums, or write on T-shirts etc, but nothing of actual substance there. This was the area I expected TDK to improve upon due to the absence of Goyer, however we got more of the same.

In conclusion, this film is aimed at the middle-of-the-road audience, who maybe know a little about cinema, but cannot be classed as knowledgable of the art form. For the intended audience, this film checks all boxes, mindless action, quotable lines, simplistic message, special effects, nothing too cerebral. It fills it's aims, however it seems to have generated illusions of Grandeur beyond belief!

Surely the biggest filmic event this year is complete copy of Metropolis that was found!

You're way overexamining on the dialogue in the movie. And since you just insulted me and the many other people who've seen and loved the movie, you really need to stop putting yourself on a pedastal when it comes to movies. You aren't above any of us.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

I'm curious as to how people find the writing anything other than sub par? There are obvious narrative concerns, which many people pick up on, which stems from Nolan setting up a world built around physics and realism, which then is often abandonned.

BUT, the writing I'm talking about, is the interactions, every line is generally some big speech, yes I can understand why they would want to do this with the Joker, however it seems more like putting a nice fascia on top of a crumbling wall. We do have the same lines used repeatedly, which is a lazy writing technique designed to please the middle-of-the-road non-cinema fans, which upon any further examination, fails to stand up to any scrutiny.

Does Alfred have any lines that aren't little quipps or a message of morality in a nutshell? Same with with many of the characters throughout the film. We end up with lots of 'lines' for people to put in signitures on forums, or write on T-shirts etc, but nothing of actual substance there. This was the area I expected TDK to improve upon due to the absence of Goyer, however we got more of the same.

In conclusion, this film is aimed at the middle-of-the-road audience, who maybe know a little about cinema, but cannot be classed as knowledgable of the art form. For the intended audience, this film checks all boxes, mindless action, quotable lines, simplistic message, special effects, nothing too cerebral. It fills it's aims, however it seems to have generated illusions of Grandeur beyond belief!

Surely the biggest filmic event this year is complete copy of Metropolis that was found!

I agree which is the reason why I think Oscar talk and this being No.1 at IMDB etc is absurb. But at the end of the day the film is still very entertaining/

 

[Leon the Professional]

"THE PATRIOT ACT IS EVIL> EVIL EVIL> EVIL EVIL."

How do you get the message that the Patriot Act is evil if Batman is able to save the day with his sonar device? If something, it's an argument for why the Patriot Act would be justifiable. Sure, Fox says it's too unethical to use, but Batman clearly doesn't see eye to eye with him on it.

 

[-Arya-]

Could someone please calrify a line said by the Joker?

Its the, "Well depending on the time he could be in one place or several places."

What does The Joker mean when he says this. Its probably very obvious but I still havent figured it out.

 

[Superhobo]

Could someone please calrify a line said by the Joker?

Its the, "Well depending on the time he could be in one place or several places."

What does The Joker mean when he says this. Its probably very obvious but I still havent figured it out.

Harvey Dent is wired to explosives, so depending on the time, he could be alive, or in several pieces.

 

[-Arya-]

Harvey Dent is wired to explosives, so depending on the time, he could be alive, or in several pieces.

A haaa! Thanks for the help t:

 

[The Guard]

He wasn't literally the ONLY person but he was a symbol for the few good people standing out against a world rife with corruption. The people seeing Dent become corrupted as well would be catastrophic.

Why? Why would it be catastrophic? People don't stop living their lives because one government official has a tragic fall.

By keeping the image of the White Knight alive, Batman is letting the people believe that one man can make a difference (without resorting to vigilantism). It is meant to inspire the people to not allow criminal behavior in their city as they have in the past by succumbing to bribery, coercion, and fear.

If the people are stupid enough to allow evil to go on when they have a chance to stop it, they deserve the city they inherited.

You advocate telling the truth to the people, which he could do, but Harvey had a place in the hearts of the people that no elected official today has in our world. Everyone "believes in Harvey Dent" and Batman doesn't want to see them lose that faith. It may not be 100% the best decision: what happens when you over protect a child from the harshness of reality? They are unprepared to deal with reality when it smacks them in the face and will most likely resent you.

Exactly. It's probably the worst thing Batman and Gordon could have done for Gotham, given the circumstances.

I'd like to see Batman and Gordon get called out for their manipulative behavior; see the people resent them and have them regain the trust of the city. Eventually this would lead to Batman becoming the symbol that Dent was supposed to be (which I believe was one of your reasons for not having to cover up Dent).

One hopes they will explore this in THE SHADOW OF THE BAT.

I am not completely defending Nolan but I DO see a logic to Batman's decision. It isn't a perfect decision on his part, but there was a solid (if short term) reason to allow the people to keep hope/faith in the symbol of Gotham's White Knight. I also see how it can/will bite him in the ass and I hope it does because that will make some damn good storytelling.

It's incredibly thin. It's like he didn't think things through on any level, and just decided to "save" Harvey's reputation for the time being.

On a side note: Batman did not break his one rule. Any deontologist will tell you that while killing is morally wrong, killing in self-defense is justifiable.

Batman wasn't killing in self-defense.

And really, that angle is somewhat irrelevant, given the nature of the situation. One man with a gun, and a highly trained superhero with an arsenal of gadgets and skills at his disposal that he, oh, forgot to use.

Anyone with half a brain with tell you that if you have other options than killing, you should utilize it, or you have in fact chosen to use lethal force. That makes him a killer. Batman didn't kill because story constraints left him no other options. The only reason Batman killed in THE DARK KNIGHT is because the writers were either unintelligent enough to come up with another option, or that they just wanted him to kill Harvey Dent in some sort of random, thin thematic connection with The Joker's plan. And that points to people who simply don't understand the character fully.

Also, there is no reason to believe that Batman intended to kill Harvey and an accidental death, while heartbreaking, doesn't really count as Batman breaking his one rule.

That's the stupidest thing I continue to have ever heard. "Gosh, I didn't MEAN to tackle him off the edge of this multi-leveled building. I just...I didn't have any other choice".

Not only did Batman endanger Harvey's life knowingly, he also endangered Gordon's son's life in the attempt to save him, which again, is assisine, given the situation and Batman's skill.

In the context of the logic of the movie, it allows someone else to step into Dent's role, whereas if Dent's tragic fall was laid out for all to see, it would be very difficult for that person to establish public trust...

Why? Is the public stupid? Knowing the story, is the public incapable of realizing WHY Dent did what he did in context? Would they expect EVERYONE who followed him to do the same?

Come on.

also, depression with such a terrible story might cause the city's economy and mental health to crash.

Riiight.

So, you're upset that Dent died? Is that essentially what this is about? Nolan was true to Dent's character, but chose to focus on Batman's true goal: which is to establish the people of Gotham's trust in their true protectors - legally established law enforcement officials. You can't criticize the movie for something that makes sense in the context of the story, just because you wanted it to be different.

I'm upset that Dent died for the sake of melodrama. Because his death is played incredibly shallowly, and used as a plot device more than anything else. Because apparently, the Nolans couldn't come up with a reason for Gotham to turn against Batman other than Batman saying he killed people. Despite the fact that the entire movie is the perfect stage for such a "turn" against him.

I get what they were TRYING to do, but it's incredibly thin. Any logic there falls apart the second you start to think about the nature of the situation.

How the hell do you tell me that Batman is doing his best to maintain trust when he's engaging the law enforcement officials (Gordon) in lies and deceit?

So that his work still stands unquestioned. So that someone can step into his place and build on the foundation he established without having that foundation washed away by his mental collapse.

Why would it suddenly be washed away? What Dent did, Dent did. His actions should still serve as an inspiration to the city, and to law enforcement officials.

You don't know how the judges in Gotham City will rule... especially if the collapse of Harvey Dent was known, and the people of Gotham consequently believe that they can't trust anyone.

So wait...because the people in Gotham don't particularly trust their officials, the judges would just let criminals walk away from their crimes?

I'm a criminology major. The judges rule by the law. The law states that you do not simply eradicate the evidence when someone involved in charging a criminal has been involved in a crime after the fact. Now, had Dent committed a crime when arresting these people, maybe. But he didn't. Nor, btw, did Dent himself arrest every single one of those people.

I think we should all stop saying that Batman broke his one rule in killing Harvey Dent. He leaped at Dent to stop him from possibly shooting a child and Dent fell off a building.

What a copout. "I didn't MEAN to...I figured he'd land on his feet".

Fine. Let's call a spade a spade. Batman didn't MEAN to kill. He just killed.

Huge difference in terms of it's relation to the mythology. I'm sure the Batman we all know and love would totally seek to justify his actions in context.

I like to use the phrase, "not facts first, truth first." The truth is... that was not Harvey Dent who committed those murders. But, you can never convince people who know the facts of that truth. So, you sacrifice the facts for the truth: what Harvey Dent believed about justice is the truth, not the betrayal his mental collapse caused.

Then that should have been their aim. To remind people what Harvey Dent believed in, and to rally people to keep fighting for a better Gotham.

Gordon doesn't lie... he simply accepts Batman's confession. Batman lies, yes, but for the purpose of protecting the truth. It's a tough choice, but he has to make it

.

Gordon lies as well and you know it.

Nevermind that frankly it's about fifteen more times powerful to have Dent at large with Gotham fearing what will happen, Batman on the run providing hope for the future since he knows he'll be around, and Gotham's hope at a low point for the end of the film. But no, that wouldn't be "powerful" enough.

 

[Fenrir]

I just can't stop laughing at The Guard's avatar, if only for the fact that how appropriately it describes him.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

How do you get the message that the Patriot Act is evil if Batman is able to save the day with his sonar device? If something, it's an argument for why the Patriot Act would be justifiable. Sure, Fox says it's too unethical to use, but Batman clearly doesn't see eye to eye with him on it.

Because Fox is wiser than Batman. Sure he saved the city but at what cost? That's why Fox quit.

 

[batman11]

Because Fox is wiser than Batman. Sure he saved the city but at what cost? That's why Fox quit.

Fox didn't quit.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

yes he did.He said he wouldn't work at wanye enterprises as long as the machiene was there

 

[The Joker]

yes he did.He said he wouldn't work at wanye enterprises as long as the machiene was there

And the machine was destroyed at the end. Batman told Lucius to type in his name after he was done. Lucius did, and it set of an automatic destruct sequence of the sonar device.

 

[Conebone69]

This movie was nothing like i expected it to be. I thought Nolan would go for the "illusion of realism" and have Wayne babble on about good and evil with the tea-spoon mentality. Boy was I wrong.

One of the most unrealistic movies ever made. And I loved it, I absolutely loved it. Ledger was good, but the Batman-character was what sold me completely. This is the Batman I grew up with and loved. Never has he been portrayed better.

Growing up I learned that the right choice most often was the unpopular choice. You can not pay attention to own image if you wish to do what is right. This movie captured that totally and it is therefore a masterpiece. 10/10

Lol, that vid was hilarious

 

[Leon the Professional]

Because Fox is wiser than Batman. Sure he saved the city but at what cost? That's why Fox quit.

It is not merely an issue of wisdom. Alfred, who has had displayed his wisdom in these movies much more than Fox, doesn't have nearly as much of an issue with Bruce spying on the public. He makes a sarcastic joke about it, but he's not shown to be bothered by it in any significant way. Whereas if Fox new about Bruce monitoring the public with his computers, given his stance on the sonar device, he clearly would be against it.

Wise people can disagree.

 

[DoomRulz]

I thought Fox didn't quit, b/c he said he'd only resign if the machine were still operational after he was done. Didn't we see the machine go kaput after he typed in his name?

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I liked this movie. I enjoyed it. But I don’t think it’s as great as everyone around me seems to sing it is.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that it’s so much unlike Batman Begins. Those two are completely different styles. Which is not a bad thing. I’m all for superhero movies trying to be more than just superhero movies (I liked 2003 Hulk). The problem for me was the overall message. But I’ll get into that later.
First the acting - all actors were great but the one everyone seems to praise above all others is Heath Ledger with his Joker. Ok, I don’t want to intrude into anyone’s opinion but I’ll attempt to burst a little bubble of misconception here - a character is as good as s/he is written. All actors do is ad their own emotions, a particular tone of voice and mannerisms. Sometimes actors write (or re-write) their own roles but that’s a different point.
So wasn’t Heath Ledger’s acting good enough? Of course it was. But I say the crazy-maniac stereotype is overrated. Put any other actor who’s good at making crazy types menacing, without making them overly comedic *coughjimcarreysriddlercough* and you got another successful Joker. So my praise goes more to those who wrote the character (who could even be Heath Ledger himself, I don’t know) not to the particular way it was acted, although also very good. I could be wrong and most certainly would like to see myself proven wrong, if Nolan ever does another movie with the Joker…but that’s pretty unlikely, isn’t it?
Now the plot - I would’ve enjoyed the whole idea behind it a lot more…if I was still 15 years old. I don’t consider myself to be an overly educated smartass but this movie reminds me of the first Matrix. As much as that movie was full of existential philosophy, it was still a clichéd action packed popcorn flick. And the more I got older, the more apparent to me it had become. Same way, TDK may have an original story but the message is so overused by now. I’ve already seen plenty of movies and read plenty of educational material concerning the subject matter. Hey, did anyone but me even notice how it ripped off the Saw horror films? …and DareDevil but that’s yet another different point.
I believe everyone can pretty much imagine how I felt when watching this movie, if I say that it felt like sitting through 2 hours and 30 minutes of a needless lesson in social philosophy. Sure, the message is right and good but I heard it all before and I don’t need it to be spelled out for me again. And then Batman and Gordon got all preachy on me at the end…yes, ok, everyone wants to introduce duality and then say that it’s really all about shades of grey. And the morally ambiguous decision’s they + Alfred make at the end don’t help either.
That particular subject just lost its appeal for me a long while ago.
I would also like to mention that, with all my loyalty to Marvel, I could be just programmed not to like anything from DC. Batman never attracted me that much really. I got under the impression that it would be a lot different this time around, with all the hype and praise it was getting, but unfortunately for me it was not so.
At the end, it’s a very good movie but also very overrated.

Ok, now I’m ready for the collective beating.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

It is not merely an issue of wisdom. Alfred, who has had displayed his wisdom in these movies much more than Fox, doesn't have nearly as much of an issue with Bruce spying on the public. He makes a sarcastic joke about it, but he's not shown to be bothered by it in any significant way. Whereas if Fox new about Bruce monitoring the public with his computers, given his stance on the sonar device, he clearly would be against it.

Wise people can disagree.

If memory serves, Alfred's opinion on the sonar was never given.

And you guys are right Fox didn't quit, but he threatened to if the machiene wasn't destroyed. So my point about him disagreeing with the machiene is till valid.