The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[nathaniel]

Are you serious? Missing theatricality? I guess jumping off a skyscraper and flying into another building to snatch a criminal before being pulled out by another plane is pretty dull. How about launching your car through a garbage truck? Riding your bike through a shopping centre? Popping in and out of places when people least expect it? Falling out of a building and catching a woman before she splatters all over a car?

Definitely no theatricality, none at all.

As for thinking that Begins will end up being the better regarded film as time goes on, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Begins is by no means poorly regarded at present, but TDK is almost universally believed to be better than Begins and a great film period. I highly doubt TDK will be considered the lesser of the two by the majority of people in the future. There's a reason why it's doing so well commercially and critically.

I mean theatricallity as in how the villains percieve batman. the best part of BB was the docks and later as he takes out scarecrow and his men They are all huddled together whispering "can he fly, is he human" ect towards the end of the film the people of gotham in fear gas induced mayhem look up and see a giant bat creature flying overhead this was the perfect set up to portray batman as a urban myth, a elemental force that criminals whisper about. TDK came along and batman is reduced to a cop in a suit he walks around and is widely known to be a vigilante who villains fear but know he is just a guy in a suit gone is all the mystery and theatricality of the character this is probably enevitable but a mythical crimefighter angle should have been played out until the third movie and even then wether he exists or not should be debated by many gothamites.

8/10 really good but not greatt:

 

[TKing]

First off this film was very long. Ledger's acting was fascinating of course. I felt at times plot points weren't clear enough - like the showdown with the snipers/SWAT/Batman/hostages/Joker - too much happening at once.

Batman's voice really really bugged me - did anyone else notice Bale's lisp? I only seem to hear it when in his suit

Overall (and I'm not a reader of the comics) it was good - to me, not as good as a lot of people are making out - but still a good film. I gave it an 8.

 

[TKing]

i didnt really know what to feel, me and my mate didnt say a word to each other untill we got to the car which was some walk away! and then when i did say something all i could say was "was that really heath ledger?". i found it just really got into my brain and i just couldn't find the words to describe it for a day or so

That's kind of the same with me. I like this review "David Ansen questions whether the viewer will come away from the film more exhausted than invigorated". Watching this epic play out, these twists and turns, and a multitude of characters - all along I was asking myself is there anything more to do?

 

[Batman jr.]

the thing that really illustrates that it was more than "POPCORN" flick is how it made me feel afterwards. when i see ironman i came out of the cinema and i was like "damn that movie was the mutts nuts!" but when i came out of the cinema after seeing TDK i didnt really know what to feel, me and my mate didnt say a word to each other untill we got to the car which was some walk away! and then when i did say something all i could say was "was that really heath ledger?". i found it just really got into my brain and i just couldn't find the words to describe it for a day or so. it sorta left me on a weird downer feeling, like i was coming down of pills or summin!! but at the same time a sense of elation knowing that i'd seen one the most intelligent, action-packed films we will see in a long time.

^ How high would you rate it now? Because it IS an overwhelming movie...

(I think you've seen it more than once )

 

[vasteelsfr]

my brother who takes french in college read your review to me glad you liked it

Oh yes, i'm bat-fan since my childhood, and when i saw this AWESOME movie, i was to the angels !

 

[Zero_Vault]

The anticipation of and then reaction to this film ventured into territory that can only be described as hysteria. I honestly don't think I have ever seen the hype machine roll into such effective and lucrative action as it has over the promotion of The Dark Knight.

Although I myself never managed to raise my interest level above passing curiosity (after all it is only a movie), the hype did pique that curiousity enough to drag me into the theatre. (Well that and my nephew). After all I was curious to see what people had been calling "the best movie of the year", "One of the best films of the decade" and "a bona fide masterpiece".

So what was my verdict? It's a good movie. I ate a lot of popcorn and was largely entertained throughout but yet I left with a sense of disappointment. Why? Because the cerebral plotlines, the dark and deep themes and brilliant dialogue I had been promised was largely absent. Yes it is remarkably excellent when judged within the realm of comic book adaptations, equally so when judged within the realm of action movie. It even scores very highly as a crime drama but that is as far as it goes. I have to surmise (and judging from what I have seen from the boards this is a statement that will make me public enemy # 1 but.....) it is a massively over rated piece of cinema.

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

Now I would like to stress that I did actually like the film. If I had gone to watch this having not been exposed to all the riculous hysteria I would most likely have come out and said what a cool movie it was. The problem is that the fan boys, hollywood media monster and sheep like public have blown their praise of it out of all reasonable proportion, to the extent that some would have you believe it is the best film ever made. My only goal here is to bring a little balance to the argument by pointing at that yes it is good, very good in fact but no it is not great.

I actually feel a little angry with all the overhype that has surrounded this. It really put expectations to such a level that I couldn't even enjoy the film anymore because I was expecting more than realistically (given the material) it could ever deliver.

I rarely pay much attention to the opinion of at least 75% of the movie going public because whether or not it is appropriate to say it, they are......how shall I put it?........intellectually challenged. But I was really hoping for a few voices of sanity amongst the minority of critics and individuals out there whose opinions I respect and yet I have found them relatively hard to come by. Thankfully there have been a few that have kept their cool and objectively realized we are in the midst of almost unprecendented movie hysteria.

Final word has to go to Heath Ledger and the legacy he left with this film. His performance (regardless of my opinions on the contradictions in his character) was a thing of excellence. I have no doubt he will be nominated for a posthumous oscar. Whether he should win or not I am not prepared to comment on at this time until the performance is objectively assessed against those of the other nominees (whoever they may be). What has saddened me though is what i feel to be the relentless profiteering of the studio to capitalise on his tragic demise.

It was natural that the death of an actor would propel interest in his up coming movie ( an already keenly anticipated movie) to new levels but it was unfortunate the way the media was manipulated into releasing stories claiming that he had become so depressed and so overwhelmed by filming such a dark role that it drove him to the excessive levels of drug use that led to his overdose. All other sources close to him indicate that his role in TDK was incidental to his death......This is shameless opportunism and has left me with a sour taste in my mouth and perhaps even sadder a lack of surprise. The corporate side of Hollywood has never had much reknown for being a shining beacon of morality. The public (predictably, as they do with most things) sure lapped it up though, and the pant wetting hysteria went to new levels (and continues unabated as geeks, teenagers and the intellectually uninspired nut in their pants across the country).

Ledger energized this picture and made it what it is. Without his electrifying performance there was nowhere near enough substance here to keep this movie afloat.

Thanks for reading........let the flaming begin.........

p.s. I welcome any form of objective response and would relish the opportunity to hear a well balanced counter point (although ultimately we both recognise neither of us will change the others opinion as it is all a matter of taste in the end) however if your idea of a worthy response is to tell me I am an a**hole, moron, d**k weed or any other comparable profanity, you can safely assume that your opinion and existance are as insignificant to me as TDK was significant to you.

 

[believe_batman]

Gordon's son, as we do, has learnt from James Gordon that lie is admissible if you have a strong argument for it. Terrorist, therefore, are now justified to lie under the very Gotham incorruptible authorities criterion.

"A strong argument" is different than "a morally justifiable argument." It's the old, do you lie to the Nazi soldiers to protect the Jews hiding in your basement. YES. And you lie to protect the innocent people in the city from the triumph of the criminals who champion chaos and their destruction. You don't expose Harvey Dent's tragic collapse to the world if you can avoid it.

The very purpose is to stand for truth. You cannot stand for truth only when truth is cool and nice. You either stand for it or you don't. Batman and Gordon decided not to.

The public deserves better: they deserve the truth.

The truth is that the public's only hope is for a strong, moral, just legal system. In protecting the public from the "facts" about Harvey's collapse, they upheld the "truth."

If Two-Face survived they'll have now to kep the lie forever, and even after their deaths the truth might come up ruining the memory of both Gordon and Batman.

I understand their reasons but they were plain wrong in their decision.

We've yet to see how it will all play out, but if Two-Face survived, it is a lot tougher to justify their decision, imho. But, from all we can know, Two-Face is dead.

Some terrorists sacrifice their very lives to keep their cause alive. That doesn't justify their actions.

Life might be not fair, truth is.

Not all causes are created equal. Self-sacrifice out of concern for others is noble: self-sacrifice to promote your own agenda is not.

 

[believe_batman]

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

This movie didn't bring any controversial or important subjects to the fore? I honestly don't know how you can make this statement with a straight face.

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

Um... yes... that's the point. The Joker wants choas to reign, but in order to make that happen, he is forced to plan, scheme, organize to oversee its rise. His speech to Dent in the hospital is total baloney... he admits as much to Batman in the end. The thing that makes him insane is (1) that he thinks choas is the ultimate reality, and (2) that he relies on so many changeable variables for his plan to succeed. But, ultimately, the Joker is a terrorist; someone who literally will do anything to see his cause - chaos - succeed. So, your first point demonstrates the complexity of this movie.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I, however, can relate to someone who desperately wants to see a city saved from the crime and filth that sickens it, who wants to protect innocent life, and is willing to sacrifice everything he has to see that happen. He is ready to give himself up and be put in jail, he puts his company in danger, he puts his life on the line constantly... it's hard for me not to root for somebody like that.

Then again, I'm an intellectually inferior being

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

Agree with you totally.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

Fair point. In the context of the movie's attempt to give an account of what happened, I think it worked, but more time spent here would have helped.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

It's "truly." And, I'd like to know how his role could have been expanded without naming the movie "Jim Gordon."

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

This is your opinion. I, for one, felt deeply for his character in the scene after Rachel's death and in the scene interrogating the Joker. "Nothing to do with all your strength."

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

Wow. I can't believe you said this with a straight face either. Let me list some themes that should have been blatantly obvious, if you took a "comic-book movie" at all seriously:

1. Terrorism - what is it and what is the proper response?
2. Human nature - is it basically good, basically bad, or somewhere in between? How far will we go to protect our own skins?
3. Law vs. choas/freedom - does the law ultimately protect us, or add to our own destruction?
4. Facts/truth vs. TRUTH/idealism - Is it ok to sacrifice the facts/truth to protect and ideal/truth that is above the normal realm of human existence?
5. Vigilantism - is it ever acceptable?

These are just a few of the themes that you can see in the movie and see the movie making statements about.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

You've stated your opinions, and I've explained why I think some of your criticism is unfair. No flaming necessary.

 

[batman11]

How did you find these problems with the movie?!?!?! You're such an a**hole, moron, d**k weed!! AGGHHH!

I kid, I kid. t:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

The contradiction however, lies within the Joker's character. We see several examples of it throughout the film. He tells Gambol his father gave him his scars, whereas he goes on to tell Rachel he did it to himself for the love of his life. Yet again we see Joker contradiction when he speaks to Harvey about "plans". He talks about how he just "does things" while others have plans, yet the ferry incident among other events are so meticulously thought out, that the Joker obviously planned it all. I understand what you're saying, however, contradiction strongly applies to the Joker as an attribute pertaining to his character in the movie. It's just another part of the mystery that is his character.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

I guess this is more of a personal opinion of yours, and not really a complaint as you said. I'm not going to try to change your opinion obviously.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

Once again, this is your opinion, however, I do disagree with the whole "Hollywood downplay" on female characters. I don't think that was really the case in TDK. Rachel's role wasn't large because in reality, there wasn't much more room for anything from her. In a film so massive, we had to get through Harvey and Bruce's transition above all, and there just wasn't room, IMO, for more Rachel development.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

Well, I guess to each his own. I thought it played out fine. We already got a taste of his violent side earlier in the film, so it didn't feel too rushed to me.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

Couldn't disagree with you more, but hey, it's your opinion. Gordon was, at times, my favorite character in the movie. I'm curious as to what you found "bland" about his role.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

I'd say that he was actually "defeated" as opposed to uninspired. And I personally thought that worked well for the story. Everything that was being thrust upon him, ultimately left Bruce feeling defeated for a period of time in TDK.

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

Your opinion of course, but I did see these themes, no matter how small some of them may have been. I will say though that it took some repeat viewings, so I do recommend you see the film more than once if you haven't already.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

Don't really know what to say about this one. You hit the nail on the head saying it was in your taste. I think I'll jut leave it at that.

 

[I Am The Knight]

let the flaming begin

And heeeerrre....Weeee...Go!

The anticipation of and then reaction to this film ventured into territory that can only be described as hysteria. I honestly don't think I have ever seen the hype machine roll into such effective and lucrative action as it has over the promotion of The Dark Knight.

Although I myself never managed to raise my interest level above passing curiosity (after all it is only a movie), the hype did pique that curiousity enough to drag me into the theatre. (Well that and my nephew). After all I was curious to see what people had been calling "the best movie of the year", "One of the best films of the decade" and "a bona fide masterpiece".

All I can say is. It's your fault. I'm a huge film lover, but I don't let myself get caught up in unrealistic expectations. The hype machine for summer movies is craaaaayzaaaay. It was no different with this movie. Problem was, by the time Ledger went into the ether, the hype machine went into overdrive and you probably gave in to it.

So what was my verdict? It's a good movie. I ate a lot of popcorn and was largely entertained throughout but yet I left with a sense of disappointment. Why? Because the cerebral plotlines, the dark and deep themes and brilliant dialogue I had been promised was largely absent. Yes it is remarkably excellent when judged within the realm of comic book adaptations, equally so when judged within the realm of action movie. It even scores very highly as a crime drama but that is as far as it goes. I have to surmise (and judging from what I have seen from the boards this is a statement that will make me public enemy # 1 but.....) it is a massively over rated piece of cinema.

Read above. Also, if you judge the movie on it's own terms and merits, you come out much more satisfied.

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

Chaos is organized. Chaos is fair. I take it you would prefer a Joker who just snaps and starts screaming while playing with his own feces?

To create chaos you need to put some kind of logic into the idea of chaos. The Joker is a criminal mastermind. He's an anarchist, but to create the kind of chaos he does in the movie he needs to apply some king of logic and planning. He's not a god who can just make things go boom.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

Batman was not supposed to have much of an arc in this movie. He's more or less a force of nature, like The Joker. A catalyst.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

Agreed. But like Bruce, her actual character is developed in the previous movie. She's another catalyst.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

I don't think so. By the time Dent kidnaps the loony with the Rachel Dawes tag, you can see he's not quite "Gotham's White Knight" and the Big Bad Harv persona rears it's ugly face. Dent is obsessed by justice. By the time Rache has died and he has been transformed, he realizes he can no longer do things by the book and becomes a vigilante.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

I wouldn't call it a bland role, but it was limited, yup.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

Why?

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

The film deals with vigilantism, the human nature, identity crisis, civilization, manipulation of the public, obsession, anarchy, etc.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

I thought it was appropiate. I could've easily taken another half hour (more Two-Face goodness ).

Now I would like to stress that I did actually like the film. If I had gone to watch this having not been exposed to all the riculous hysteria I would most likely have come out and said what a cool movie it was. The problem is that the fan boys, hollywood media monster and sheep like public have blown their praise of it out of all reasonable proportion, to the extent that some would have you believe it is the best film ever made. My only goal here is to bring a little balance to the argument by pointing at that yes it is good, very good in fact but no it is not great.

I actually feel a little angry with all the overhype that has surrounded this. It really put expectations to such a level that I couldn't even enjoy the film anymore because I was expecting more than realistically (given the material) it could ever deliver.

I rarely pay much attention to the opinion of at least 75% of the movie going public because whether or not it is appropriate to say it, they are......how shall I put it?........intellectually challenged. But I was really hoping for a few voices of sanity amongst the minority of critics and individuals out there whose opinions I respect and yet I have found them relatively hard to come by. Thankfully there have been a few that have kept their cool and objectively realized we are in the midst of almost unprecendented movie hysteria.

I agree with some parts of your editorial

 

[danoyse]

I understand where you are coming from here, but, for me, an important point is Harvey Dent's mental state. If it had turned out that Harvey was always a corrupt official, who had been slaughtering criminals on the side, Gordon and Batman would have no excuse for covering for him. However, since he lost his mind, it's not as if "Harvey" was responsible for the murders. "Two-Face" was. To explain this to the public is nearly impossible and serves no purpose: they deserve better. So, fix the blame on Batman, because he was known to be present at Harvey's death. It's not like it might not be proven that he didn't do it someday... and, in the meantime, it provides not only a benefit for Gotham's spirit, but also an unexpected benefit for Batman, as criminals may believe now that he is willing to break his "one rule."

Batman sacrifices his reputation to protect Harvey Dent, who unfairly ruined it after losing his mind after one bad day.

Agreed. Essentially Batman did for Harvey Dent what Dent tried to do for him at the press conference when he revealed himself as Batman. He was willing to sacrifice his reputation and career to let Batman keep doing his thing, but all along Batman had been the one telling him all along that his responsibility to the people of Gotham was greater than his--that he had to be the symbol of justice, not Batman.

I see Dent's fall as what would have happened to Bruce Wayne if he had shot the man who killed his parents. He understood all the rage and desperation for vengence...and that it was his tragedy that caused it to happen, it wasn't who he really was. He wanted to protect Harvey Dent's "true" face for all the right reasons--and that was something Rachel had taught him.

And it wasn't a matter of lying and appeasing terrorists. The terrorists got what they wanted--they think Batman is gone. But he's not, and this makes him even stronger than ever.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

^ How high would you rate it now? Because it IS an overwhelming movie...

(I think you've seen it more than once )

haha and you would be right! but it is deffinatly my favourite or at least tied favourite film of all time now that ive seen it a few times and understand it better. i dont really like giving films scores but if i was to i'd say 9.5/10. it just seems more than a movie, to me anyway, its like a actual cinematic event that really touches on REAL subjects. people say ironman was like that aswell but to be honest the only message it really sent was one that we already knew, that muslim extremists are bad! lol

 

[Superhobo]

The anticipation of and then reaction to this film ventured into territory that can only be described as hysteria. I honestly don't think I have ever seen the hype machine roll into such effective and lucrative action as it has over the promotion of The Dark Knight.

Although I myself never managed to raise my interest level above passing curiosity (after all it is only a movie), the hype did pique that curiousity enough to drag me into the theatre. (Well that and my nephew). After all I was curious to see what people had been calling "the best movie of the year", "One of the best films of the decade" and "a bona fide masterpiece".

So what was my verdict? It's a good movie. I ate a lot of popcorn and was largely entertained throughout but yet I left with a sense of disappointment. Why? Because the cerebral plotlines, the dark and deep themes and brilliant dialogue I had been promised was largely absent. Yes it is remarkably excellent when judged within the realm of comic book adaptations, equally so when judged within the realm of action movie. It even scores very highly as a crime drama but that is as far as it goes. I have to surmise (and judging from what I have seen from the boards this is a statement that will make me public enemy # 1 but.....) it is a massively over rated piece of cinema.

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

Now I would like to stress that I did actually like the film. If I had gone to watch this having not been exposed to all the riculous hysteria I would most likely have come out and said what a cool movie it was. The problem is that the fan boys, hollywood media monster and sheep like public have blown their praise of it out of all reasonable proportion, to the extent that some would have you believe it is the best film ever made. My only goal here is to bring a little balance to the argument by pointing at that yes it is good, very good in fact but no it is not great.

I actually feel a little angry with all the overhype that has surrounded this. It really put expectations to such a level that I couldn't even enjoy the film anymore because I was expecting more than realistically (given the material) it could ever deliver.

I rarely pay much attention to the opinion of at least 75% of the movie going public because whether or not it is appropriate to say it, they are......how shall I put it?........intellectually challenged. But I was really hoping for a few voices of sanity amongst the minority of critics and individuals out there whose opinions I respect and yet I have found them relatively hard to come by. Thankfully there have been a few that have kept their cool and objectively realized we are in the midst of almost unprecendented movie hysteria.

Final word has to go to Heath Ledger and the legacy he left with this film. His performance (regardless of my opinions on the contradictions in his character) was a thing of excellence. I have no doubt he will be nominated for a posthumous oscar. Whether he should win or not I am not prepared to comment on at this time until the performance is objectively assessed against those of the other nominees (whoever they may be). What has saddened me though is what i feel to be the relentless profiteering of the studio to capitalise on his tragic demise.

It was natural that the death of an actor would propel interest in his up coming movie ( an already keenly anticipated movie) to new levels but it was unfortunate the way the media was manipulated into releasing stories claiming that he had become so depressed and so overwhelmed by filming such a dark role that it drove him to the excessive levels of drug use that led to his overdose. All other sources close to him indicate that his role in TDK was incidental to his death......This is shameless opportunism and has left me with a sour taste in my mouth and perhaps even sadder a lack of surprise. The corporate side of Hollywood has never had much reknown for being a shining beacon of morality. The public (predictably, as they do with most things) sure lapped it up though, and the pant wetting hysteria went to new levels (and continues unabated as geeks, teenagers and the intellectually uninspired nut in their pants across the country).

Ledger energized this picture and made it what it is. Without his electrifying performance there was nowhere near enough substance here to keep this movie afloat.

Thanks for reading........let the flaming begin.........

p.s. I welcome any form of objective response and would relish the opportunity to hear a well balanced counter point (although ultimately we both recognise neither of us will change the others opinion as it is all a matter of taste in the end) however if your idea of a worthy response is to tell me I am an a**hole, moron, d**k weed or any other comparable profanity, you can safely assume that your opinion and existance are as insignificant to me as TDK was significant to you.

I posted your review on 4chan - we first dissected it, point by point. Then we LOL'ed. Hard.

 

[Superhobo]

The anticipation of and then reaction to this film ventured into territory that can only be described as hysteria. I honestly don't think I have ever seen the hype machine roll into such effective and lucrative action as it has over the promotion of The Dark Knight.

Although I myself never managed to raise my interest level above passing curiosity (after all it is only a movie), the hype did pique that curiousity enough to drag me into the theatre. (Well that and my nephew). After all I was curious to see what people had been calling "the best movie of the year", "One of the best films of the decade" and "a bona fide masterpiece".

So what was my verdict? It's a good movie. I ate a lot of popcorn and was largely entertained throughout but yet I left with a sense of disappointment. Why? Because the cerebral plotlines, the dark and deep themes and brilliant dialogue I had been promised was largely absent. Yes it is remarkably excellent when judged within the realm of comic book adaptations, equally so when judged within the realm of action movie. It even scores very highly as a crime drama but that is as far as it goes. I have to surmise (and judging from what I have seen from the boards this is a statement that will make me public enemy # 1 but.....) it is a massively over rated piece of cinema.

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

Now I would like to stress that I did actually like the film. If I had gone to watch this having not been exposed to all the riculous hysteria I would most likely have come out and said what a cool movie it was. The problem is that the fan boys, hollywood media monster and sheep like public have blown their praise of it out of all reasonable proportion, to the extent that some would have you believe it is the best film ever made. My only goal here is to bring a little balance to the argument by pointing at that yes it is good, very good in fact but no it is not great.

I actually feel a little angry with all the overhype that has surrounded this. It really put expectations to such a level that I couldn't even enjoy the film anymore because I was expecting more than realistically (given the material) it could ever deliver.

I rarely pay much attention to the opinion of at least 75% of the movie going public because whether or not it is appropriate to say it, they are......how shall I put it?........intellectually challenged. But I was really hoping for a few voices of sanity amongst the minority of critics and individuals out there whose opinions I respect and yet I have found them relatively hard to come by. Thankfully there have been a few that have kept their cool and objectively realized we are in the midst of almost unprecendented movie hysteria.

Final word has to go to Heath Ledger and the legacy he left with this film. His performance (regardless of my opinions on the contradictions in his character) was a thing of excellence. I have no doubt he will be nominated for a posthumous oscar. Whether he should win or not I am not prepared to comment on at this time until the performance is objectively assessed against those of the other nominees (whoever they may be). What has saddened me though is what i feel to be the relentless profiteering of the studio to capitalise on his tragic demise.

It was natural that the death of an actor would propel interest in his up coming movie ( an already keenly anticipated movie) to new levels but it was unfortunate the way the media was manipulated into releasing stories claiming that he had become so depressed and so overwhelmed by filming such a dark role that it drove him to the excessive levels of drug use that led to his overdose. All other sources close to him indicate that his role in TDK was incidental to his death......This is shameless opportunism and has left me with a sour taste in my mouth and perhaps even sadder a lack of surprise. The corporate side of Hollywood has never had much reknown for being a shining beacon of morality. The public (predictably, as they do with most things) sure lapped it up though, and the pant wetting hysteria went to new levels (and continues unabated as geeks, teenagers and the intellectually uninspired nut in their pants across the country).

Ledger energized this picture and made it what it is. Without his electrifying performance there was nowhere near enough substance here to keep this movie afloat.

Thanks for reading........let the flaming begin.........

p.s. I welcome any form of objective response and would relish the opportunity to hear a well balanced counter point (although ultimately we both recognise neither of us will change the others opinion as it is all a matter of taste in the end) however if your idea of a worthy response is to tell me I am an a**hole, moron, d**k weed or any other comparable profanity, you can safely assume that your opinion and existance are as insignificant to me as TDK was significant to you.

I posted your review on 4chan - we first dissected it, point by point. Then we LOL'ed. Hard.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The anticipation of and then reaction to this film ventured into territory that can only be described as hysteria. I honestly don't think I have ever seen the hype machine roll into such effective and lucrative action as it has over the promotion of The Dark Knight.

Although I myself never managed to raise my interest level above passing curiosity (after all it is only a movie), the hype did pique that curiousity enough to drag me into the theatre. (Well that and my nephew). After all I was curious to see what people had been calling "the best movie of the year", "One of the best films of the decade" and "a bona fide masterpiece".

So what was my verdict? It's a good movie. I ate a lot of popcorn and was largely entertained throughout but yet I left with a sense of disappointment. Why? Because the cerebral plotlines, the dark and deep themes and brilliant dialogue I had been promised was largely absent. Yes it is remarkably excellent when judged within the realm of comic book adaptations, equally so when judged within the realm of action movie. It even scores very highly as a crime drama but that is as far as it goes. I have to surmise (and judging from what I have seen from the boards this is a statement that will make me public enemy # 1 but.....) it is a massively over rated piece of cinema.

I honestly haven't put too much thought into this because candidly movies rarely merit too much post analysis unless they really bring a controversial or important subject to the fore. Regardless here are a few after thoughts I had, make of it what you will:

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

2. It's impossible to relate to the internal struggle that bruce Wayne/Batman is meant to be experiencing and that defines the dark nature of the character. Although this is not perhaps a legitimate complaint as such (because it is just being faithful to the comic) I always feel striking a chord with the audience and generating some empathy helps one take an interest in the fate of characters. Wayne, with his essentially bottomless pit of money and dual personality is hard to relate to. These comic book bounderies are the principle reasons a movie like this cannot really be anything more than great (yet fleeting) entertainment.

3. The role of Rachel Dawes was generally poorly developed and poorly written. This continues a theme within Hollywood of giving women less important and less well developed parts than men. Although it would be fair to say she was never supposed to be the centre of the film, it is also fair to say that the role she did have could have been drastically improved.

4. I was unconvicned by Eckhart's transformation into two face. It was all to quick and unconvincing for me.

5. Gary Oldman, who is a truely excellent character, had a bland and limited role written for him here.

6. Christian Bale, another excellent actor, was surprisingly uninspired and uninspiring throughout I felt.

7. For all it's length and hint at socially relevent and deep themes they were ultimately absent. The film did briefly skim over the surface of some torture issues (amongst others) but it was nothing eye opening, new or particularly ingenious.

8. For my taste, and try to remember it is just an opinion, it was a little too pretentious and ultimately hollow to warrant the 2.5 hour run time.

Now I would like to stress that I did actually like the film. If I had gone to watch this having not been exposed to all the riculous hysteria I would most likely have come out and said what a cool movie it was. The problem is that the fan boys, hollywood media monster and sheep like public have blown their praise of it out of all reasonable proportion, to the extent that some would have you believe it is the best film ever made. My only goal here is to bring a little balance to the argument by pointing at that yes it is good, very good in fact but no it is not great.

I actually feel a little angry with all the overhype that has surrounded this. It really put expectations to such a level that I couldn't even enjoy the film anymore because I was expecting more than realistically (given the material) it could ever deliver.

I rarely pay much attention to the opinion of at least 75% of the movie going public because whether or not it is appropriate to say it, they are......how shall I put it?........intellectually challenged. But I was really hoping for a few voices of sanity amongst the minority of critics and individuals out there whose opinions I respect and yet I have found them relatively hard to come by. Thankfully there have been a few that have kept their cool and objectively realized we are in the midst of almost unprecendented movie hysteria.

Final word has to go to Heath Ledger and the legacy he left with this film. His performance (regardless of my opinions on the contradictions in his character) was a thing of excellence. I have no doubt he will be nominated for a posthumous oscar. Whether he should win or not I am not prepared to comment on at this time until the performance is objectively assessed against those of the other nominees (whoever they may be). What has saddened me though is what i feel to be the relentless profiteering of the studio to capitalise on his tragic demise.

It was natural that the death of an actor would propel interest in his up coming movie ( an already keenly anticipated movie) to new levels but it was unfortunate the way the media was manipulated into releasing stories claiming that he had become so depressed and so overwhelmed by filming such a dark role that it drove him to the excessive levels of drug use that led to his overdose. All other sources close to him indicate that his role in TDK was incidental to his death......This is shameless opportunism and has left me with a sour taste in my mouth and perhaps even sadder a lack of surprise. The corporate side of Hollywood has never had much reknown for being a shining beacon of morality. The public (predictably, as they do with most things) sure lapped it up though, and the pant wetting hysteria went to new levels (and continues unabated as geeks, teenagers and the intellectually uninspired nut in their pants across the country).

Ledger energized this picture and made it what it is. Without his electrifying performance there was nowhere near enough substance here to keep this movie afloat.

Thanks for reading........let the flaming begin.........

p.s. I welcome any form of objective response and would relish the opportunity to hear a well balanced counter point (although ultimately we both recognise neither of us will change the others opinion as it is all a matter of taste in the end) however if your idea of a worthy response is to tell me I am an a**hole, moron, d**k weed or any other comparable profanity, you can safely assume that your opinion and existance are as insignificant to me as TDK was significant to you.

yo man that was a good review with some good points. althought i dont completely agree with it im not gonna bash you. but the part ive put in bold i dont think you understood. the joker is a out and out lier, it isn't contradicting his character. i'm assuming your talking about his lil chat with harvey? well he is only saying to harvey that he doesn't plan things and isn't a schemer because he is trying to blag harvey up and tell him that he was wrong in trying to be good. he obviously is very intelligent and can read people like a book thus giving him the ability to subconciously sway there original thoughts. i dont know if you noticed but in the interrogation scene with batman when the joker is explaining "they'll cast you out like a leper!" batmans looks like he sees where the joker is coming from and maybe agrees with him slightly, but obviously batman/bruces will is too strong to be swayed.

 

[Watson]

"A strong argument" is different than "a morally justifiable argument." It's the old, do you lie to the Nazi soldiers to protect the Jews hiding in your basement. YES. And you lie to protect the innocent people in the city from the triumph of the criminals who champion chaos and their destruction. You don't expose Harvey Dent's tragic collapse to the world if you can avoid it.



The truth is that the public's only hope is for a strong, moral, just legal system. In protecting the public from the "facts" about Harvey's collapse, they upheld the "truth."



We've yet to see how it will all play out, but if Two-Face survived, it is a lot tougher to justify their decision, imho. But, from all we can know, Two-Face is dead.



Not all causes are created equal. Self-sacrifice out of concern for others is noble: self-sacrifice to promote your own agenda is not.

These are very good points, and why I personally had no problem with the ending. Truth is not a black and white issue, and the characters in TDK deal with that as best they can.

 

[Super_Child]

Motion picture events that you must see don't come around very often. The Matrix in 1999, The Lord of the Rings trilogy a few years later. And now there is The Dark Knight. Looking at its running time before hand you would think damn this had better be good. Not one of the 150 minutes was wasted.

The dark theme of this movie (even more so than Begins) was gripping. Chris Nolan has delved into the pits of society and mirrored this movie on the things we see in todays dark and horrible alleyways.

The joker was amazing, Heath (RIP) you deserve best supporting actor for this. And if the academy don't even nominate you then there is something very wrong with the world. The jokers charecter was written perfectly, his whole agent of chaos persona was great to watch, and laugh with him when he laughed.

All of the supporting cast were great too, with one exception being Maggie Gylenhalle? (sp) as Rachel Dawes. Don't get me wrong she did an ok job. Perhaps its because you always got the sense her charecter was only there to cause heartache.

As a comic book fan and a fan of their respective movies, I can honestly say we have come to the mother of all films from this genre. And definetly one of the best of all time.

9.9 out of 10.

 

[Dark Knight]

That's kind of the same with me. I like this review "David Ansen questions whether the viewer will come away from the film more exhausted than invigorated". Watching this epic play out, these twists and turns, and a multitude of characters - all along I was asking myself is there anything more to do?

That was one of the fastest 2/12 hours films I have ever been through. I personally thought it was one the tightest comic based films I have seen. Definitely the best superhero comic based film of all time and a film that I did not want to end.

 

[Dark Knight]

Motion picture events that you must see don't come around very often. The Matrix in 1999, The Lord of the Rings trilogy a few years later. And now there is The Dark Knight. Looking at its running time before hand you would think damn this had better be good. Not one of the 150 minutes was wasted.

The dark theme of this movie (even more so than Begins) was gripping. Chris Nolan has delved into the pits of society and mirrored this movie on the things we see in todays dark and horrible alleyways.

The joker was amazing, Heath (RIP) you deserve best supporting actor for this. And if the academy don't even nominate you then there is something very wrong with the world. The jokers charecter was written perfectly, his whole agent of chaos persona was great to watch, and laugh with him when he laughed.

All of the supporting cast were great too, with one exception being Maggie Gylenhalle? (sp) as Rachel Dawes. Don't get me wrong she did an ok job. Perhaps its because you always got the sense her charecter was only there to cause heartache.

As a comic book fan and a fan of their respective movies, I can honestly say we have come to the mother of all films from this genre. And definetly one of the best of all time.

9.9 out of 10.

Agreed. This film keeps you thinking about it for the next 3 days.

 

[Batman jr.]

haha and you would be right! but it is deffinatly my favourite or at least tied favourite film of all time now that ive seen it a few times and understand it better. i dont really like giving films scores but if i was to i'd say 9.5/10. it just seems more than a movie, to me anyway, its like a actual cinematic event that really touches on REAL subjects. people say ironman was like that aswell but to be honest the only message it really sent was one that we already knew, that muslim extremists are bad! lol

I'm sure Nolan knows this too and will call his next Batmanfilm "Batman vs al qaida".

And, you're totally right about TDK!

 

[Superhobo]

1. For a character whose sole purpose was choas, who didn't answer to anyone and who had no agenda other than choas, the Joker was remarkably well organized. Given the attention to detail given to his character and the excellent performance given by the late Heath Ledger to bring him to life, this is a remarkable contradiction in the very nature of the movie's central character.

I interpret it as an oversimplification of joker's views. He's in it for $hits and giggles. He doesn't have a LIFE plan, but that does not mean he's incapable or opposed philosophically to a strategy. Rather, there's no overarching goal.

Dent, Batman, and Gordon had the plan to clean up the city, to make it a proper place again. While the Joker certainly wants to see it descend into chaos, he has no overreaching plan beyond that. He does not, for example, care if he runs the mob and rules gotham's underworld. That was simply a means to an end. The fact he burned his own money is proof of that, he had no real desire for it beyond buying lots of explosives.

Once one of Joker's games ends, he comes up with another one. Nothing beyond that. And that's what he meant by no plans.

 

[El Payaso]

"A strong argument" is different than "a morally justifiable argument." It's the old, do you lie to the Nazi soldiers to protect the Jews hiding in your basement. YES.

Absolutely. In order to protect a life in imminent danger.

And you lie to protect the innocent people in the city from the triumph of the criminals who champion chaos and their destruction.

No. You triumph over the criminals to protect innocent people. You don’t just lie about your enemies’ triumph, pretending it never happened.

You don't expose Harvey Dent's tragic collapse to the world if you can avoid it.

Yes you do. Or you’re justifying any kind of lie. You don’t lose a war but say you won in order to keep people’s spirit happy. Your people deserves truth before your personal happy version.

The truth is that the public's only hope is for a strong, moral, just legal system. In protecting the public from the "facts" about Harvey's collapse, they upheld the "truth."

No. Facts constitute truth. You don’t deny one uphelding the other or we better start a “Orwell’s 1984” kind of society where truth is told according to authorities’ tastes and criteria.

We've yet to see how it will all play out, but if Two-Face survived, it is a lot tougher to justify their decision, imho. But, from all we can know, Two-Face is dead.

I also think he’s dead, but I’m not sure of it.

Dead or not, nothing justifies an intentional collective lie.

Not all causes are created equal. Self-sacrifice out of concern for others is noble: self-sacrifice to promote your own agenda is not.

I don’t deny Batman’s not being noble by self-sacrificing. I just say he’s wrong by promoting lie.

 

[Lemon]

Okay, here's my review:

This movie kicked so much arse I didn't know there was that much arse for it to kick.
10/10

 

[believe_batman]

Absolutely. In order to protect a life in imminent danger.

The decision Gordon and Batman made was that the lives of Gothamites would be in danger were Harvey's collapse made public. You can disagree with their call.

No. Facts constitute truth. You don’t deny one uphelding the other or we better start a “Orwell’s 1984” kind of society where truth is told according to authorities’ tastes and criteria.

I disagree. I believe that there is truth that goes beyond mere facts.

 

[The Navigator]

Forgot to add something: Rachel died, which bumps the movie up a notch. What an annoying @#$@...