The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[Infinity9999x]

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?

I'd have to disagree here. A character is definitely NOT always as good as they're written. I'd say the success of a character depends on 40% writing and 60% actor. Take Jack Sparrow for instance. If I gave you a sheet of all his lines in the film, you might read that and go "yeah, okay, he was a pretty funny guy, kind of interesting."

But then I could have you watch the way Depp plays him, and the way he delivers the lines, his body mannerisms, the way he looks at the people he's interacting with, all of these things combine to make a scene you thought was slightly humorous while reading hilarious on screen. Depp made that character, and in this case, he elevated it far above the way the character was written. The script didn't tell him to adopt that characteristic swagger, slow halting way of speaking, or eccentric mannerisims.

Heath's Joker was the same way. The script didn't tell Heath to adopt that nasal voice, that hunched over way of walking, to frequently lick his lips like a dog licks a wound, or the comical rag doll like way of moving. Nolan has said this himself, he's stated in interviews that Heath did things with the character that were completely different from what he envisioned when he wrote the scene.

So, no, I would not ever say that a character is only as good as their writing. The writing can help, but it in no way is the sole reason why a great performance is great.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I'd have to disagree here. A character is definitely NOT always as good as they're written. I'd say the success of a character depends on 40% writing and 60% actor. Take Jack Sparrow for instance. If I gave you a sheet of all his lines in the film, you might read that and go "yeah, okay, he was a pretty funny guy, kind of interesting."

Hehe, well for one I can’t stand Depp’s Sparrow and otherwise I’m at the age in my life where everything I read on page is much better than what I get on screen…acting wise at least.
I have a vivid imagination I guess.

But then I could have you watch the way Depp plays him, and the way he delivers the lines, his body mannerisms, the way he looks at the people he's interacting with, all of these things combine to make a scene you thought was slightly humorous while reading hilarious on screen. Depp made that character, and in this case, he elevated it far above the way the character was written. The script didn't tell him to adopt that characteristic swagger, slow halting way of speaking, or eccentric mannerisims.
Heath's Joker was the same way. The script didn't tell Heath to adopt that nasal voice, that hunched over way of walking, to frequently lick his lips like a dog licks a wound, or the comical rag doll like way of moving.

That’s why I said:

All actors do is ad their own emotions, a particular tone of voice and mannerisms.

Both are important but, since I’ve seen so many acting styles and especially crazy maniac roles, I’m now much more interested in what characters say, not the way they say it.

Nolan has said this himself, he's stated in interviews that Heath did things with the character that were completely different from what he envisioned when he wrote the scene.

Ah, but did Nolan actually say that it was better than his own vision?
‘Different’ - that’s the key word.

So, no, I would not ever say that a character is only as good as their writing. The writing can help, but it in no way is the sole reason why a great performance is great.

Never used the word ‘only’ or ‘sole’.
In my opinion actors ad to the role they are given and they certainly can say that it’s their role but I just have different standards.

It’s fine that you disagree with me, I’m not trying to place my opinion above your own.
In fact I’m the one at a disadvantage since you enjoyed it and I didn’t…as much.

 

[Dotten]

Five people gave this a one? That's a shame, I'm glad I'm one who loved it.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Hehe, well for one I can’t stand Depp’s Sparrow and otherwise I’m at the age in my life where everything I read on page is much better than what I get on screen…acting wise at least.
I have a vivid imagination I guess.


That’s why I said:

Both are important but, since I’ve seen so many acting styles and especially crazy maniac roles, I’m now much more interested in what characters say, not the way they say it.


Ah, but did Nolan actually say that it was better than his own vision?
‘Different’ - that’s the key word.


Never used the word ‘only’ or ‘sole’.
In my opinion actors ad to the role they are given and they certainly can say that it’s their role but I just have different standards.

It’s fine that you disagree with me, I’m not trying to place my opinion above your own.
In fact I’m the one at a disadvantage since you enjoyed it and I didn’t…as much.

Well, really the thing that struck me was when you said that a character is as good as he/she is written. Personally I thought that that was a bit disrespectful to actors because if the role they play is only as good as it's written, then anybody could be an actor. All they have to do is read the script line for line and I'll be able to portray Hannibal Lecter as good as Hopkins did.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the way I took it. To say that the role is only as good as it's written really seems like it doesn't matter what the actors do. Yes, all actors do is add their own mannerism and voice to the character, but I think that's what makes a character great. Otherwise, it'd be like I said. We could just get anyone to memorize lines from a script and the performance would be great, as long as they had great writing.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Well, really the thing that struck me was when you said that a character is as good as he/she is written. Personally I thought that that was a bit disrespectful to actors because if the role they play is only as good as it's written, then anybody could be an actor. All they have to do is read the script line for line and I'll be able to portray Hannibal Lecter as good as Hopkins did.
Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the way I took it. To say that the role is only as good as it's written really seems like it doesn't matter what the actors do. Yes, all actors do is add their own mannerism and voice to the character, but I think that's what makes a character great. Otherwise, it'd be like I said. We could just get anyone to memorize lines from a script and the performance would be great, as long as they had great writing.

Ah, no offense but the way I see it here the problem seems to be that you can’t say the sentence - “a character is as good as s/he is written.” Without putting the word ‘only’ in it. Even subconsciously you keep adding it in right after you quoted me. That’s why I think the meaning of that particular phrase escapes you.
Let me clarify:
All I meant is that - once the acting standard is met, which is such a must for a movie of this calibre to the point that it becomes a given, I am then free to concentrate on the whole point of the character - his dialogue and how important s/he is to the story. Of course, without good enough acting I wouldn’t be able to do that, that’s why I said both are important. I don’t take these things for granted.
However, as I also said, the Joker’s type of character - the crazy maniac type, as I keep calling it, which is far different from Hannibal Lecter’s classy intellectual maniac (seriously, I don’t see what people find so similar with him and the Joker), is very overrated. I’ve seen plenty of that type in other movies. If Ledger brought anything new to it, I’m actually surprised it hasn’t come sooner.

I know I might sound too full of myself but I mean no disrespect to anyone else. These are just my standards.

 

[Superhobo]

Ha - your posts are all over the place. You sound like Peter, from that one infamous (good god) episode of Family Guy, "it insists on itself."

 

[Infinity9999x]

Ah, no offense but the way I see it here the problem seems to be that you can’t say the sentence - “a character is as good as s/he is written.” Without putting the word ‘only’ in it. Even subconsciously you keep adding it in right after you quoted me. That’s why I think the meaning of that particular phrase escapes you.
Let me clarify:
All I meant is that - once the acting standard is met, which is such a must for a movie of this calibre to the point that it becomes a given, I am then free to concentrate on the whole point of the character - his dialogue and how important s/he is to the story. Of course, without good enough acting I wouldn’t be able to do that, that’s why I said both are important. I don’t take these things for granted.
However, as I also said, the Joker’s type of character - the crazy maniac type, as I keep calling it, which is far different from Hannibal Lecter’s classy intellectual maniac (seriously, I don’t see what people find so similar with him and the Joker), is very overrated. I’ve seen plenty of that type in other movies. If Ledger brought anything new to it, I’m actually surprised it hasn’t come sooner.

I know I might sound too full of myself but I mean no disrespect to anyone else. These are just my standards.

That makes more sense to me. You were right, when I first read your post, I took it to mean that you thought the actor's performance would only be good if the writing was good, and the actor had little input into the making of the character.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Ha - your posts are all over the place. You sound like Peter, from that one infamous (good god) episode of Family Guy, "it insists on itself."

Ha! Yes, as far as the Godfather goes, I agree with Peter Griffin completely - "It insists upon itself, Louis. It insists upon itself."

Glad we could come to an understanding, Infinity.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

edited

 

[Sandman138]

So I finally saw it today. It was a hell of a lot better than Begins, but...

Not gonna lie, the main reason I actually paid to see this on the big screen was to see the Watchmen trailer on the big screen and during it some fat **** walked in front of the screen during Dr. M materializing so I didn't get a good look at his giant blurred blue dong and then some old grandpa's ten year old kid wouldn't shut the **** up and I wanted to kill the both of them... so I was kind of clouded going into the film.

Luckily, the first two hours of this film are absolutely awesome. Maggie Gyllenhall was great despite her weird eyes (it's not here nose Wil, it's those weird bags under her eyes) and I could totally see why the two main players were all over her semi-fugly character. Ledger was ****ing brilliant as the Joker for the most part. That enterance to the mob when he does his "magic trick" made me laugh out loud... well played. My big gripe with the first part of the film? The suit change. It can withstand being lit on fire, being shot at, and being stabbed by metal knives... but a Doberman is just a bit too much to handle? And then the new suit can't really stand up to the dogs either. Stupid. Luckily, the Lucious scene is quick and almost disposable anyways. Aaron Eckhardt is the star of this movie. His progression is handled beautifully and it pulled on all the right heart strings. The trip to Hong Kong was awesome. Alfred and Gordon were actually necessary characters in this film. For the majority of this movie, everything is damn near perfect.

Then they had to end it, and that is where Nolan has predictably ****ed up in every single one of his movies. Batman builds a wire-tapping network and intorduces it with the line "Beautiful, isn't it?"... I shuddered, but I could buy that a man like Wayne would do that. What I couldn't buy was that Fox would go along with it. I also couldn't buy that both boats wouldn't blow each other up, especially not the way they handled it. I could maybe buy the big black prisoner having a conscience, but not the upstanding citizen who had already rationalized pressing the button to himself and all on board so thoroughly. What I really hated though, was that ending monologue that justified the way Batman acted. "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserved to have their faith rewarded." No. Sorry, that is a load of ****. If the film was a bit more ambiguous about it, and asked us to question these assertions, I could get behind it. But it doesn't. It crams that sentiment down our throats like a modern day Aesop and I kind of resent that the same way I resent Michael Moore. Having said that, this is a moral complaint and not one that actually makes the film any less well crafted.

My final score: 8.5/10
__________________

 

[Darth_Thomas]

Here is my review. It was an ok movie. I thought the story was a bit blah. Bale is the abosolute worst Batman there is. He is a lack luster actor and to listen to him talk with the mask on is like listening to a snarling dog with a lisp. I really hate the batmobile and the could not stand the batcycle. Now to the only decent point in the movie. Ledger. He did a very good job as the Joker. In my opinion the only reason this movie is making so much money and breaking the records is because everyone wants to see Ledger's last movie. But this is only my opinion.

 

[Superhobo]

Here is my review. It was an ok movie. I thought the story was a bit blah. Bale is the abosolute worst Batman there is. He is a lack luster actor and to listen to him talk with the mask on is like listening to a snarling dog with a lisp. I really hate the batmobile and the could not stand the batcycle. Now to the only decent point in the movie. Ledger. He did a very good job as the Joker. In my opinion the only reason this movie is making so much money and breaking the records is because everyone wants to see Ledger's last movie. But this is only my opinion.

You would be wrong about that - this coming from a guy who laughed at, "More like Heath Deadger!"

 

[The Guard]

Sandman, I think we're eye to eye. Sorry about your WATCHMEN experience.

 

[Superhobo]

I'm sorry - what is it about the ending you've both got a problem with, again? Maybe I'm just not making a certain connection, or it could be my medication, but nothing in Sandman's latter paragraph is making any sense to me.

 

[terry78]

See, this is why I'm glad we have differing opinions about this flick from veterans of the board and not just newbies busting in saying it sucks or it's the greatest in one line and leaving. Gives some gravitas to the discussion when some like it, and some find flaws.

 

[Superhobo]

See, this is why I'm glad we have differing opinions about this flick from veterans of the board and not just newbies busting in saying it sucks or it's the greatest in one line and leaving. Gives some gravitas to the discussion when some like it, and some find flaws.

WE ARE A WELL OILED MACHINE.

 

[tastetheatrical]

The Dark Knight is a good follow-up to Batman Begins. It's just not all it could be.

Spoiler

The Dark Knight has a lot of substance to present and a big fat story to juggle with. I know a lot of people complained about the running time, but I'd argue that the movie needed more time in its story exposition. Batman Begins was very methodical in its approach of story exposition and character development. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, runs at a very brisk pace, never allowing the audience to settle in and absorb what entirely is going on. Critical plot details and several dialogs are entirely missed or forgotten because the Joker cuts right in with another sadistic game. My opinion is that the Joker is not only a real disturbance to Gotham City, but also to the viewers. He provides a lot of chaos and a lot of the movie's action, but he also is the character that drives the movie, with everyone reacting to his new game. I think this rather causes the film to moves too fast and several times, I'm left wondering what exactly is going on.

Secondly, there are several leaps in plot that are not entirely explained. Gordon's leap from the dead to the living is, in my opinion, one of the weakest aspects of the film. I felt relieved to see him alive, but also thought it was rather convenient, the way he was brought back. Some things also happen too fast that it's hard to catch like the bullet splinters investigation. Dark Knight needs viewers to savour at least the most important parts, and I feel there's a good fourty percent of the film that goes by and you probably didn't catch.

Thirdly, Ledger is a good choice, but isn't special. All the superlatives don't really add up. He played a psychopath, but can be done by any other good actor. Ledger did good, just not really at par with the hype.

Fourth, I wonder at Batman's superhuman ability to fall from high places. Falling from that party and I was very much expecting him to glide away or use his grapnel gun, but no... he fell on the car... and walked away. Also, the height Harvey and Batman fell at the end was certainly an odd thing, noting that Harvey lay dead, and Batman got up and rode his bike away.

What I did get from the film were very good themes and very concepts. Bruce's predicament of his life, his choice to be Batman, and how the Joker tests him feel very, very real. You understand the tension and what goes through Bruce's mind.

Harvey Dent's characterization is also very much top notch. The opening act of the film is one of its strongest points and Harvey Dent's introduction very much delivers the nobility but also how much the character could really fall. His fall to Two Face is very much believable and goes very much with the raw intensity of the film.

Heath Ledger's Joker is a very playful character, one that I thoroughly enjoyed throughout the movie. He sometimes serves as a comic relief but also manages to deliver some very intense moments. That said, I still believe proper casting of a reputable actor will be good enough to carry the role.

A special, special mention needs to be made here for Tiny Lister who, with such a short amount of time, manages to escalate the tension and produce a very memorable scene.

The theme the Joker asserts about civilized society and how Batman and Gotham manages to rise to the challenge in the end shows that the movie manages to hold on to some sense and delivers at least on that. It's a good film, though it does deliver some cheesy Batman segments talking about goodness of people.

Lastly, I definitely feel the real sense of danger Nolan was shooting for. You definitely felt anybody could die at any moment, and Nolan doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger on the character. Jim Gordon dying felt like it did really happen even though I knew there were scenes that he was still alive from the trailers. Rachel Dawes's death was also a gut wrenching reminder of just how much everyone in the movie felt vulnerable.

The ending, Batman taking the blame, and Gordon's speech was very well put. I thought it wrapped up the movie nicely about Batman was definitely not a person that could loiter freely, remaining to be a hero in seclusion.

This film shows a lot of material, and by the end, you walk out with a good feeling about the entire movie. Sadly, too many things are not very clear. This film needs repeated viewing, which can be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. It begs to be watched again.

As much as The Dark Knight is a good movie, it's sloppier than Batman Begins and isn't the best of Nolan's efforts. Here's my vote for Nolan to stop at this point. He's done two good Batman movies, but I doubt he'll be able to pull a third movie together. I'll be happy to watch the Prisoner, but I'll be extremely skeptical of a Nolan Bat 3.

7/10

 

[The Senator]

I consider The Dark Knight to be one of the best movies I have seen in the past year, as well as one of the best crime sagas released in the past decade. This movie succeeded not because of any single performance, character, or the director; it succeeded because it transcended the typical framework which most superhero movies build themselves on. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was outstanding, but I do not believe his performance alone made this film what it was. Never before have I seen such a well-rounded cast of characters in a superhero movie. Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhardt, Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman were excellent in their supporting roles. Even minor characters, such as the mayor or the Joker's schizophrenic thugs, were performed brilliantly.

Of course, the film is not without its flaws. The sonar system was unnecessary and, in as little words, stupid. Rachel Dawes was just as annoying, despite the fact a better actress replaced her. The biggest flaw, though, was that the film seemed too cluttered. So much was going on at any given time, it felt as if there was no true climax to the film. Every scene was huge, breathtaking and well directed; but it felt as if the overarching plot was lost somewhere along the way.

The flaws were few and the performances were incredible, perhaps even Oscar worthy. The Dark Knight was the Batman movie I have been waiting for, and I can only hope that the third film (if one is made) exceeds it.

 

[The Guard]

I'm sorry - what is it about the ending you've both got a problem with, again? Maybe I'm just not making a certain connection, or it could be my medication, but nothing in Sandman's latter paragraph is making any sense to me.

Instead of being an intelligent progression of events on any level, at the end it suddenly becomes forced and melodramatic for the sake of it. The boat angle is just ridiculous and hard to swallow on multiple levels. Also, instead of developing the "Gotham against Batman" situation in a logical manner, they just throw it in there and with the line "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserved to have their faith rewarded.", making it seem like the lesson here is that lying to people so they feel better about a given situation is always a better option than telling the truth, which is frankly, an absolutely absurd mindset. And instead of having Gordon try to stop Dent and creating conflict that way, Dent suddenly decides to become a serial supervillain and go around killing innocent children for no good reason. And then there's the Deux Ex Machina "sonar" device.

 

[Eggyman]

Instead of being an intelligent progression of events on any level, at the end it suddenly becomes forced and melodramatic for the sake of it. The boat angle is just ridiculous and hard to swallow on multiple levels. Also, instead of developing the "Gotham against Batman" situation in a logical manner, they just throw it in there and with the line "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserved to have their faith rewarded.", making it seem like the lesson here is that lying to people so they feel better about a given situation is always a better option than telling the truth, which is frankly, an absolutely absurd mindset. And instead of having Gordon try to stop Dent and creating conflict that way, Dent suddenly decides to become a serial supervillain and go around killing innocent children for no good reason. And then there's the Deux Ex Machina "sonar" device.

I think a white lie 'sometimes' can be in people's best interests. Not always.

 

[Superhobo]

Instead of being an intelligent progression of events on any level, at the end it suddenly becomes forced and melodramatic for the sake of it. The boat angle is just ridiculous and hard to swallow on multiple levels.

I disagree - the only thing I found stretching about that scene was that it was D'BONE who makes the climactic decision - I kept expecting him to say, " 's my detonator now!"

Also, instead of developing the "Gotham against Batman" situation in a logical manner, they just throw it in there and with the line "Sometimes the truth isn't enough. Sometimes people deserved to have their faith rewarded.", making it seem like the lesson here is that lying to people so they feel better about a given situation is always a better option than telling the truth, which is frankly, an absolutely absurd mindset.

When did they say it was always the better option? Throughout the film, the theme that, with Harvey as this symbol of hope for the city, that the city might have some chance at redemption - even Bruce is optimistic about this, and this parallels the opposite reaction of escalation.

They didn't throw it in there - again, throughout the film, we can see there is some antagonism building up against Batman, both from the press conference scene and the breakdown of Gordon's wife, among others.

And instead of having Gordon try to stop Dent and creating conflict that way,

Stop Dent from doing what?

Dent suddenly decides to become a serial supervillain and go around killing innocent children for no good reason.

Throughout the film, we're shown that, while he is a good person, he came off - to me - as bipolar; and, in his moments of vulnerability, his decision to do so is influenced both by his anger at the preceding events - and at Gordon for failing to save Rachel (we're already shown he harbors a lot of anger at him for it) - and by the Joker and their conversation.

It's been a couple of days since I've seen the film, and while most of it is pretty crystalline, this is one of the bits whose progression I can't recall that well. I've been meaning to see it again, but I haven't had the chance.

Ho hum, what could I do about that? :wink:

And then there's the Deux Ex Machina "sonar" device.

I didn't so much have a problem with the Sonar in itself, as - again - it was foreshadowed earlier, quite a few times. My problem came with the lenses, which were only in there for not more than two minutes, so -

So, what was your general opinion on the film?

 

[Eggyman]

I think a white lie 'sometimes' can be in people's best interests. Not always.

Not really happy with how I've worded that. What I meant was that sometimes white lies are acceptable. Not always.

 

[nite-owl]

10/10 for me I just got the 10/10 marks up to 666.

 

[Gotham22]

I finally just got back watching it. The film was amazing. Better than Begins, actually better than any bat-film.
The bat-suit was better on screens than from pics and posters.
Heath was amazing as the Joker. I would say he was funny in a guresome way.
Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face was terrifice. The way the name Two-Face came about was pretty interesting
Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman was better than in Begins.
Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes was better. I'm gald she was more in the story.
Gary Oldman's Gordon, terrifice.
Michael Caine's Alfred was amazing again but it seemed he has less lines and screen time this time.
Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox seems to have more screen time this time than in Begins.
Non-stop action and very dramatic the film was.

 

[danoyse]

I finally saw this last night, and I thought it was phenomenal. Intense, scary, brilliantly acted and written. I wanted to stay and see it again as soon as it ended. Just one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen.