|
Never has a movie been so anticipated. Normally I would say any movie that is 2 hours and 45 minutes is going to drag, and I'm glad to say that this was certainly not the case. I could sit here and write a long winded review of every little detail and nuance of the movie, about the great cinematography, well-balanced editing blah blah but after seeing this movie, none of that matters. The best word to describe this movie is "Epic". Christian Bale's performance was solid as ever, Aaron Eckhart was also very good but as I'm sure most everybody imagined, The Joker stole the show. From his first scene on stage he overpowers every other performance and your attention is immediately focused on him, regardless of what is happening. The movie is filled with twists and turns and is as dark and twisted as I could have possibly dreamed. It had just the right amount of blood, the violence was real and the cut-away scenes leaved little to the imagination. I feel if this movie was anything but The Dark Knight, it would have gotten an R rating. Most reviewers will undoubtably spend the most time remarking on Heath Ledger's performance, while his death has a lot to do with the amount of press, I don't feel as though it overshadows his superb performance. That is where I could write the most about; The Joker. While the movie is a "Batman Movie" he almost is just acting as a catalyst while we get to experience the world of Joker. Given the complexities of his character, I'm more than okay with that. All the supporting actors did a great job, although given the cast it almost goes without saying. Completely worth the 3 year wait. Go see this movie. Leave the 10 year olds (and younger) at home. PROS: Amazing acting by Heath Ledger, great special effects/makeup, twists and turns keep you on the edge of your seat. CONS: We don't have more Joker to look forward to. Despite PG-13 Rating, this is not a kid-friendly movie. 5.5/5 (277/100) 
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
It was good, but not perfect. Heath Ledger's performance of Joker was phenomenal - although I don't necessarily understand why people need to claim that it eclipsed Jack Nicholson's[sic] performance, or that it was Oscar worthy. Listing the flaws that I felt were within the movie would feel like nit-picking, and it is. The problem is that I felt there were quite a few nits in the movie. Unlike the first one, I wasn't sucked in by the movie so much that it made me forgive any problems that I had with it. In all, it felt like there was TOO much plot to go around. I think that a subplot or two could have been cut, and that would have cut down the running-time on this.. probably too long movie. I love seeing Batman on screen as much as the next guy (probably more so), but at some point, it felt like they were just throwing in plots to make the movie longer. The movie was good, very good, it just wasn't the perfection that I felt the first one was. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 12:32
|
|
|
I heard a LOT of hype about this movie, and it surpassed anything I'd heard. Heath Ledger gives one of the most convincing and genuinely creepy performances I have ever seen. You can really tell when someone 'becomes' a character, and he clearly did - the tiniest details in his mannerisms and actions make it feel like this isn't heath ledger as the joker, this is the god drat joker. Watching nicholson's joker felt like jack nicholson dressed up as the joker and told to act like himself, whereas this really felt like a personality that could only exist in this movie. Simply stunning. The rest of the movie outside of ledger was also quite good, especially harvey dent's roll. 5.5/5, one of the best movies I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 12:37
|
|
|
After all of the media surrounding this movie, from the movie itself to Ledger's death, there's absolutely no way someone could go into this movie without any sort of expectations. And the movie met every one of mine. The movie flew by despite its run time. I found myself looking at my clock once not because I was wondering when it would end, but because I was hoping I still had hours left to go. I was absolutely enthralled and not a second went by that I wasn't thinking "I can't wait to see what happens next." Heath's performance as the Joker is absolutely phenomenal. You see a lunatic, a crazy person, but someone with a method to his madness. My friends and I left this movie disappointed only because we knew there wouldn't be another movie with this actor's portrayal of one of the most interesting villains in comic book history. All of the actors did a great job in their respective rolls, and I felt the storyline moved along smoothly. With a few surprises here and there, amazing action sequences, an awesome villain and a solid plot, the movie is an absolute must-see. I already can't wait to own it on blu-ray to look at on my pretty HDTV. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 13:19
|
|
|
This is the best Superhero movie that I've ever seen. Despite criticisms that this movie was "jumbled" or doesn't know what it's doing, I found the plot very linear and easy to follow, but not condescending or too simple to be interesting. It builds on both the characters and the themes of the last Batman movie, and removes many of the criticisms I had for it. The liberal use of shaky-cam from Batman Begins disappears (or at least is so innocuous that I could not detect it), and Bruce Wayne's morality is left much less ambiguous. Ledger's performance was, of course, excellent (if it had been any better they would have to rename the movie), but I think many aren't giving Eckhart the credit due for playing a believable Harvy Dent, a character who changes so drastically in the course of the two and a half hours, that it takes a very talented actor to pull off. All in all, if you liked anything about the first one, you should see this movie. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 15:06
|
|
|
As everyone else has mentioned the hype around The Dark Knight, particularly Ledger's performance as The Joker, led to me having incredibly high expectations. Usually when this happens it leads to extreme disappointments, thankfully this time my expectations were met. For such a long movie I never once lost interest nor do I look back and think certain sections could be cut out. Some of the cityscape shots were fantastic and I would’ve loved to see it on an IMAX screen (unfortunately there is no longer one in my city). There were a number of acting performances that were very good. Eckhart was excellent as Harvey Dent with Bale, Gyllenhaal, Oldman, Caine all delivering quality performances also. However, as expected Ledger definitely stole the show and it’s a real shame we won’t get to see him playing this role or any role ever again. My only concern now is what happens from here? I was actually surprised that Two Face died leaving no room for him returning in a sequel. With Two Face dead and Nolan unlikely to bring in another actor to play The Joker who will be the villain in any future movies? I’m honestly not convinced they would be able to bring in anyone to meet the level set by Ledger and The Joker. Anything done from here is likely to just look subpar which is a real shame. Definitely highly recommended, even if you aren’t a huge fan of the previous Batman movies. PROS: Excellent acting performances, action sequences were fantastic, solid plot with enough twists and turns to keep it interesting despite being over 2 and a half hours long. CONS: No chance of seeing Ledger again. Where to from here with Batman? 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 15:07
|
|
|
The movie was long and I have to say it kept going and going and going, but it did not really drag on, it had an amazing pace that kept me in the movie. At certain times I thought the movie might possibly end, but it would always bring me back. Movie was great and my only complaint is the raspy voice that Batman has when he is in costume, but that is tiny compared to how amazing everything else. 5/5 EDIT Oh and I heard a lot of hype about Heath's performance going into this movie. I thought it was just because he died and they were trying to make a big deal out of it, but NOW I see why everyone was talking about it. He IS the joker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 19:02
|
|
|
A movie that surpassed its hype, something done so rarely. This is the best comic book movie ever. The movie doesn't go cliche or dumb down. It is amazing. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 21:59
|
|
|
I had a friend who had lost interest in this film because of how good Iron Man was. As much as I liked Iron Man, Iron Man shouldn't even be whispered in the same sentence as this masterpiece. A must see for comic book fans and non-comic book fans alike. Incredible performances, pacing, acting, and special effects. Movie of the year thus far, even with how incredible Wall-E was. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 22:41
|
|
|
I'm probably in the minority, but I really didn't think the movie was very good. The movie is certainly long, and while most of the scenes are, when viewed alone, good and add to the plot or the building tension, there are just too many of them. I thought that the key actors did a great job most of the time; Ledger was the best Joker I've ever seen; Bale's Bruce Wayne was good (but his Batman was pretty forgettable; in fact I can't remember too many of Batman's lines or scenes, just that horrible voice he uses), and the guy who played Harvey Dent was great. Alfred and Fox didn't get much screen time, but the bit they got was fine. I'm really not sure why I didn't like this movie, so I'm just going to chalk it up to doing too much and being too long. 3/5 Edit: To the poster above: I thought Iron Man was a much better put together movie than this, at least up until the Dude gets into his suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 22:55
|
|
|
One of the best films of the year. Easily the best comic book film of all time, but to just classify it as a comic book film really doesn't fit. This is essentially a modern crime drama that happens to have more colorful characters than we're used to seeing. I had immense expectations, I'd been anticipating this film for so many months now, following it daily. This film met them, and exceeded them in many respects. Ledger's execution of the Joker is absolutely perfect, and he earned every bit of hype that his performance stirred up. I have absolutely nothing but praise for him in this role and his creation of one of the most memorable onscreen psychopaths in the last decade, and certainly one of the best I've ever seen. Had the Joker not been in this film Eckhart would have easily stolen the show, and he does a fantastic job with a character that goes through so many changes throughout the movie. Freeman and Caine are great in their supporting roles, and not many people had doubts about that, with Freeman's character getting the chance to develop from a moral standpoint a lot more openly than I expected. Gyllenhaal as Ms. Dawes is a dramatic upgrade over the mousey and often annoying Katie Holmes, and she pulled off the part to a much more satisfying degree. Bale plays a much cockier version of Wayne and a Batman that is both frustrated and in control at the same time. The story the film has to tell is a lot like a line of dominoes falling over, with each substory falling over into the next. There's a lot going on in this movie, and there's a lot to cover - even considering the massive runtime the film has - but it never slows down to the point where you're disinterested. I wanted more at the end, as I'm sure many fans will as well. The action sequences are much more satisfying than anything found in Begins, and the Joker has more than a few gruesome moments that will have the squeamish members of the audience looking away for a second. Certainly not a movie for the kids. The cons that I have with the film are nothing more than nitpicky little things that fall into the category of "just my opinion", for instance Batman's cowl is a little too cheeky and round and some of the technology used by Batman in the film is pretty questionable. It's almost as if you've been sucked into the "real" world of Gotham, and when a fantastical bat-gadget pops into the picture it takes you a minute to remind yourself that it's okay to have this in the movie, because he's The Batman. If the bat-summoning sonar from Begins broke your movie immersion, the gadgets in The Dark Knight are less over the top and won't push it too far, so don't worry. It's nothing worse than you'd find in a Mission: Impossible or another spy-fantasy type flick. Overall this is a fantastic summer film and delivered everything I was waiting for. The performances from the actors are stellar, it blends action, drama and suspense very well, and circles them all around the central theme of the moral dilemma - doing what needs to be done, or doing what is right? 5.5/5, will see it again as soon as I can get another pair of tickets. The theater in my hometown is completely sold out for 3 more days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 23:06
|
|
|
This is far from the best comic book movie of all time. Spider-Man still shits on this thing in all sorts of ways, and so do other comic book movies. But the Dark Knight is far better than Begins, so however much you liked the first one just know you will enjoy the second one more (unless you're retarded and really think the Scarecrow was a great villain). Why, oh why, does Batman (Christian Bale) have to growl his lines? In the first movie it was okay because he only did it for a few words at a time but in this one he was growling whole sentences. ROOOOAR WHERE IS HE? I honestly wish there were more Joker in the movie even though he had a healthy screen time. One question though when Rachel is thrown out of the building by the Joker and Batman leaps out to catch her, landing on the car... uhh.. what happens to the Joker and Harvey Dent? You're telling me the Joker just said "well it isn't like it's worth searching a room or two over even though Batman isn't anywhere close to stop our pursuit now, might as well pack our bags we're going home boys!" Anyone notice this is the first comic book movie I've seen with no intro? No fancy logo and list of actors. It just starts. I really like that part of it. gently caress Morgan Pussyface can't help the batman out Freeman. 4.75025/5 [edit] Badfinger posted:The Joker said later he thought Dent was Batman. If Batman/Dent goes out the window, you don't keep looking for him. That actually makes some sense. I thought I was crazy but a few others made the same observation I did in that Dark Knight spoilers thread in Cinema Discusso, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Thanks for actually explaining something that happened in the movie more than DA COPS HAD JOKER SCARED YOU loving IDIOT GOSH! Bubba Smith fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2008 23:33
|
|
|
Need some backlash? I've got your backlash right here. Okay, good stuff first, because I'm not a total party pooper: the acting is universally solid, and in Ledger's case, great. Actually, Eckhardt was also pretty excellent. The world-building is convincing, all the sets are high-quality, etc. There are several pretty good vehicular action scenes. There are at least a few quite good lines. And plenty of stuff gets blown up. I stayed in the theater the whole time, and never really got antsy or wanted to leave. But: the plot did not actually hold together that well - the compelling part was the interpersonal psychological conflict between Batman and the Joker, and pretty much only that. The hand-to-hand action scene choreography was confused. Rachel is still boring, and once again we have a superhero movie with just one female character with more than two lines of dialogue, whose sole function is to be perfect and beautiful and show the hero what he's fighting for. And - this is necessarily vague, to avoid spoilers - I happily suspend belief at movies, but the movie needs to throw me a bone and allow me some way to rationalize, in my head, the events I see on screen. There were points in this movie where it just didn't. And as far as the "intelligence" of the movie goes: I think the philosophy was fairly ham-handed. When we're just hearing the Joker's take on life, it's entertaining - they could have just had that, because it's interesting and in character, and the audience could have extrapolated from other characters' reactions to the Joker and thought through various implications themselves. But every quasi-philosophical thought the movie has is spelled out and intoned solemnly, by one character or the other. It's tedious, and it is dumbed down. Iron Man was more entertaining. Heck, so was the first Pirates of the Caribbean, or Spiderman 2, or many other blockbuster movies that have become modern popular classics. And I'm not willing to say this movie was "smarter" than any of them, though it does take itself more seriously (not necessarily a bad thing, though it was in this case, since that attitude led to lots of the most boring parts). The Dark Knight was about as good as Batman Begins, which is to say - a well-envisioned superhero movie that takes the mythology seriously and has good acting, but is also fairly bloated and never quite as enjoyable or exciting as the truly first-tier films. I suggest taking the expectations down a notch. I went in nursing a secret hope for something as revolutionary as the Lord of the Rings films. Don't make the same mistake. This one is somewhere between 3 and 3.5. Maybe I'd judge it 3.5 with a bit more critical distance, but with the disappointment of unmet hype in addition to the underlying problems with the movie, right now it feels more like 3/5 onefish fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jul 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 00:12
|
|
|
This is the best superhero movie of all time, I am quite sure. At first, it starts slow, but quickly builds momentum. Some people might get lost in the story in the first 15 minutes or so, but the film's story merges into a masterpiece. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is utterly amazing. He entangles himself in your head to a point that you become paranoid at his next move, yet longing to see just what it is. You fall in love with his quick wit, and his scarily psychotic view on life only to find yourself shocked at his actions. Christian Bale as in Batman begins is top tier in the realm of Batman movies, his performance is just classic Bruce Wayne, cocky yet conflicted. The special effects are stellar, in that it's not the CGI horror show that you've seen in various other super hero films, no the explosions are real. The chase scenes are intense and the only calm in the movie are build ups that are eerily intense in their cinematography and musical scores. Anyone who can say Iron Man is more entertaining than this film, is more or less a brainless oaf that doesn't receive the deep psychological impact the Heath Ledger leaves. The Dark Knight is very dark, while Iron Man is much more childish (though very good) and could be written off as a kids film in comparison; this film offers no apologies and demands your attention, it is a must see. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 01:38
|
|
|
For me, Batman Begins was an overhyped mess of a film that was celebrated more for what it wasn't than for what it was; so when I walked into the packed midnight showing of The Dark Knight, it'd be fair to say that my expectations weren't very high--but I at least kept the chip on my shoulder safely at home. Imagine my surprise when I witnessed Christopher Nolan correct all of the mistakes of Batman Begins in two and a half hours; a remarkable task considering that most find the director's first attempt at Batman virtually flawless. It's rare to see directors learn from their mistakes, especially in the comfort zone of the summer blockbuster, but make no mistake about it: The Dark Knight is the superior Batman film. Begins was sort of like a buffet; full of lukewarm, assorted Batman parts threatening to inflict nausea at any moment. The sequel is a seven-course meal; still a little too big, but well-planned, well-paced, and extremely satisfying by the end. Of course, most of the reason for The Dark Knight's success is Heath Ledger and his completely bizarre and fully-committed take on The Joker. Ledger's Joker is a little different than the ones we've seen in the past; instead of dressing up his sadism in theatrics, The Dark Knight's Joker is an agent of pure nihilism, sort of like Javier Bardem's psychopath from No Country For Old Men. It's not my favorite version of the Joker (that would be Mark Hamill from The Animated Series), but the villains have always been the most interesting part of Batman, and The Joker's well-planned mayhem certainly provides more entertainment than the confusing, half-baked scheme of The Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul from Begins. And Ledger is a hundred times more fun to watch than Christian Bale, whose Batman voice has been reduced to such cartoonish bravado that it's hard not to giggle whenever he parts his constantly-pursed lips. But Batman's not around very much in The Dark Knight, and that may be the reason why the sequel succeeds where Nolan's original film didn't. Sure, there are your standard fun--albeit, poorly composed--Batman action sequences, but the stories of The Joker, Lt. Gordon, and Harvey Dent are exponentially more interesting than Bruce Wayne's childhood trauma; the supporting characters also share the same amount of screen time as Batman, who has been relegated to little more than an enforcer of the status quo in the Dark Knight. Dent's plot is especially good, and while it's kind of a shame that the entirety of Two Face's story was squeezed into the last third of a single film, I have a feeling that the doors have been opened for sympathetic villains in the next Batman movie--after all, the best villains in The Animated Series were the ones you felt sorry for, like The Mad Hatter and Mr. Freeze. So file this one under "pleasantly surprised" for me. Knowing what Nolan is capable of, I really wish Begins was better, but if the next film (and I assume there will be one) is as good as The Dark Knight, I'll have nothing to complain about. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 02:38
|
|
|
The Dark Knight walks a very strange line; it's a superhero film but gives no indication that it is, since it introduces a world that feels very real. The Gotham of Batman Begins still gave a vibe of cartoon world; no such thing here. A great strength of this film is that all of the characters feel very real, even if they're (pardon the expression) batshit insane. What you have here is a grounded drama in the batman universe, and it works extremely well. In fact, it works so well that it makes the most comicbook aspect of it a negative for me. Just to get it out of the way, the only thing I didn't like was (much like in Batman Begins) ridiculous technology used by batman. What makes it worse, is that it's pretty unnecessary. Batman is a master detective and I would've much preferred seeing him use those skills instead of pure techno-gadget solutions. Other than that, we get all of the characters in the batman universe pretty much exactly as they should be. Someone finally gets it. All of the major actors really nail their roles. Props to Aaron E. for making a character totally likable, believable and fierce. Also props to Oldman and the storywriters for making a Gordon that I actually liked- a character I have never liked in any incarnation before. The movie is long, but never felt like it. I could've watched another hour and been happy. And that's when you know you're watching a good movie. 4.75/5, if only for the jarring comicbook technology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 02:44
|
|
|
not a review
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 03:06
|
|
|
Pros: Where do I begin? Ledgers performance is absolutely incredible, one of the best acting performances of all time. Pretty much everything I can say good about the movie has already been covered here so... Cons: Every single word that came out of Batmans mouth. It was comically bad and made me cringe every time. Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne? Great. Christian Bale as Batman? AWFUL. I need to rewatch Batman Begins and see if it bothers me as much as it did in this movie. Also, I agree with the poster who said that the tech Batman uses seemed out of place.. this is loving Batman, he don't need no sonar cellphone bullshit. 4.5/5 although I accidentally rated it a 1 because I'm an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 04:36
|
|
|
not a review
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 04:52
|
|
|
not a review
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 08:14
|
|
|
From the opening bank scene the movie hits the ground running and doesn't let up. Generally speaking Batman Begins has more thoughtful pacing but if you didn't enjoy that movie because you thought it was slow in parts then Dark Knight should more than make up for it. The biggest talking point of Dark Knight is Heath Ledger playing the Joker. After the second scene he appears in the audience in the cinema would hush, terrified what he would do next. A memorable performance and easily the best comic book villain ever. All actors filled their roles nicely, although I wouldn't pick Aaron Eckhart has Harvey Dent, he was surprisingly good. The only weak link is Morgan Freeman, he was playing the role he has played in every other movie in recent memory. Strongly recommended, Heath Ledger's performance is worth price of admission and anything else is a sweet bonus. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 12:17
|
|
|
I agree with the people who thought this movie was about its villains. Ledger and Eckhart really stole the show with Bale being a supporting character. The movie was long, and through the middle to end you could really tell, but it didn't really bother me. Bale's raspy voice is a lot more apparent, just because he actually talks in this one. I was really REALLY disappointed when they killed Dent, I would see his character as a descent trade-off for The Joker in future movies, BUT my comic book friend told me to only believe someone was truly dead when you actually see the body "dead." When they are giving the funeral for him, it could be Dent's funeral, not Two-Face's...it's a stretch, but then again, this is a comic book movie. Go see this movie for its villains. Batman and the others are there for support, but this is a villain movie; really dark and had me tense through a lot of it, almost made me forget that Batman would try to make everything right again. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 17:07
|
|
|
onefish posted:And as far as the "intelligence" of the movie goes: I think the philosophy was fairly ham-handed. When we're just hearing the Joker's take on life, it's entertaining - they could have just had that, because it's interesting and in character, and the audience could have extrapolated from other characters' reactions to the Joker and thought through various implications themselves. But every quasi-philosophical thought the movie has is spelled out and intoned solemnly, by one character or the other. It's tedious, and it is dumbed down. I don't think the "intelligence" of Batman will tell you anything about life, what is intelligent about Batman is its sophistication. There are a lot of interesting things the movie does that are just more sophisticated and smarter than a lot of comic book movies. A few examples of things that I thought were pretty well done... 1. The film's take on The Joker being Batman's opposite, not just a really bad guy. 2. Batman as a hero that does anything to help the city, even if those things make him look bad and like a murderer. 3. The movies ability to create tension with the use of The Joker's always-one-step-aheadiness, I personally thought the movie had an almost No Country for Old Men feeling. I don't think Pirates of the Caribiean did one thing in the least that I consider smart. Batman does have some problems (cellphone vision, grumble grumble voices and too James Bondy) but it has a collection of pretty classic scenes and setups that I thought were a lot better than this genre usually give us. 5/5 MillDaKill fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 19:46
|
|
|
Easily best move of the year and the best superhero movie. Also, Heath Ledger's Joker clearly is better than any other to date. I actually enjoyed the grave voice Batman used because he really can't get away with using his Bruce Wayne voice in this more realistic take and it adds to the grittiness for me. There was a ceremony for the death of Harvey Dent, but I still think Two-Face is alive. 5/5 polio king fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jul 19, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 22:17
|
|
|
What a great movie. I really liked Jack Nicholson as Joker, but I think Heath Ledger's outstrips Nicholson's by a mile. He (Ledger) has the uncanny ability to make you laugh your rear end off in this movie, even at the simplest of lines ("Hiiiiiiii.") See this movie for Ledger's performance, if nothing else - it really is worth it. I enjoyed the scenes about Batman's role in Gotham City - it's a topic that was never really explored in previous films. Batman has always been my favorite comic superhero because he's not the stereotypical hero, so I liked seeing him accept his role as the outlaw, and watching him evading police capture, at the end of the film. I was pretty disappointed when Two-Face died. He and Joker were always my favorite Batman villains, and I was expecting Two-Face to be the antagonist in the next film. I'm not really sure where Nolan is planning to go from here - maybe redesigning the Riddler? I don't really know how much luck he would have with some of the other Batman villains. That said, there are a few flaws that take away a 5-star review. First, it's long. They could've easily cut half an hour off of the film by cutting out (or cutting down) less essential scenes. The subplot involving the new Mafia don and the Chinese guy seemed unnecessary, as did the executive who discovered Batman's true identity and the ensuing "let's get him the gently caress outta dodge" scene. Secondly, Bale growling every other one of his lines in the film got a bit tedious. I can understand why it's used, and it was OK in Batman Begins because he didn't have as much dialogue. But in Dark Knight it was too much. I began to wonder if after a scene was shot, Bale would go to an aide and growl "get me a throat drop" or some such. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with the next film, because there's no way they won't make a sequel. Let's just hope it doesn't go the way of Spiderman. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 01:54
|
|
|
Saw it Thursday, saw it Friday, I'm itching to go see it again tonight. That said I still cant bring my self to say this is a great movie. As people have mentioned, batman's mask/voice/gadgets are a bit much to swallow. It drove me crazy seeing someone attempting to mimic Katie Holmes' "Rachel" but not looking nearly as adorable. The two-face "make-up" was way too over the top and pulled me out of the film's reality. Editing had some issues, specially during the chase sequence. It was nice to get some more joker moments, but it just didn't flow properly. The joker performance was lovely and definitely a great display of Ledger's abilities. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to find someone to duplicate the persona in future films. A good percentage of what makes a great character is the writer/director/costume/makeup. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 06:00
|
|
|
I thought The Dark Knight was as significant an improvement over Batman Begins as that film was over previous screen incarnations of the character. Just as Begins elevated the story to mythic proportions, Dark Knight brought it down to an almost uncomfortably human level, focusing less on spectacle (even though there's plenty of that) and more on the moral struggles of the characters. The highest praise I can give to the movie is that it reminded me of The Wire. It's a sprawling but utterly engrossing crime drama at heart, with Batman presented as just one small part of the constantly shifting power structure of a deeply troubled city. The dime-store concept of good vs. evil quickly becomes lost in the intricacies of an ugly situation, a situation that unfolds into a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. The best of Batman's comic book stories always made the audience question the character's methods and whether they are truly justified by the good he does. We all know his heart is in the right place, but it's never clear if his head is screwed on straight. This question is at the center of the movie, and in Nolan's version, Bruce Wayne is smart enough to ask it of himself. The beauty of it all is that it's never truly answered. The joker has always been the greatest of Batman's villains because he lives to destroy the hero's will for his own twisted enjoyment, a force of chaos to challenge the very idea of order that Batman tries to maintain, a dark counterpoint to everything he stands for, constantly daring Batman to fight on his terms. Heath Ledger's performance is unforgettable, and he embodies the nihilistic soul of the character like no actor before him. He easily takes his place as the greatest (and most frightening) comic book villain in cinema history. He would have been the undeniable centerpiece of the film even without his recent death, and they will find him hard to replace. Speaking of replacements, the recasting of Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes in the last installment) was as significant an improvement as any. Aaron Eckhart also did a wonderful job as Harvey Dent, underpinning the character's heroic actions with an aura of danger that made his tragic downfall very believable. I will also award bonus points for the inclusion of Nestor Carbonell, who played the self-obsessed Batman parody "Batmanuel" in the short-lived live-action sitcom version of "The Tick," as Gotham City's conflicted Mayor. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 08:20
|
|
|
I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to this movie, but I came away stunned. Ledger was beyond brilliant, and the rest of the cast was excellent as well- especially Bale and Eckhart. I was not expecting Iron Man to get outdone so quickly, but now I am hesitant to even mention them in the same sentence. That was the shortest 3 hours I have ever spent in a theater, and DK comes away by far the best "comic book" movie ever- it's really not even close. I can't fathom what they have in store next, but whatever it is, will have some some enormous shoes to fill. 5.5/5 Gramps fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 19:34
|
|
|
I may come back to amend this, since my head is spinning pretty badly, but I loved the hell out of this. The midnight screening was a fantastic experience which began with three hours of Titanic-steerage hooting and hollering and continued with 2.5 hours of morbid fascination. TDK is captivating to everyone watching. This is not a kids movie, and it actually had my stomach turning in several spots. In fact, it does not uphold traditional three act story structure, which is both appreciated and discombobulating. Gotham is well fleshed out, if a bit unrecognizable from the city of Batman Begins. Acting ranged from solid to transcendent (Ledger and Eckhart were both great) and it was as well-written as any Nolan movie so far. The Dark Knight has been overshadowed/enlarged by offscreen hype and incidents, but when it comes down to brass tacks, it upholds and improves from the quality of other Nolan projects. This movie has haunted me for days, and I believe it is an instant classic. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 20:04
|
|
|
While it was overall a pretty decent movie, there were parts that needed to be cut out entirely. however its still much better than Batman Begins . plus I couldn't look at that Maggie gyllenhaal chick for very long without my eyes bleeding slightly. in short: she ugly 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2008 22:49
|
|
|
In the context of superhero movies this one is definitely the new benchmark. While a lot of the technogizmos at Batman's disposal sometimes feel a little silly, the film's main themes of heroism and morality really made this work. The Joker is fantastic as a force of nature, constantly underestimated for only being one man. While Ledger's death overshadows the movie, his performance really is brilliant, and he is one of the most genuinely scary movie villains to date, constantly making the other characters question who they can trust. Dent is another character that really makes the movie work, although Two Face does come across as a bit gimmicky, and the character gets bogged down in heavy handed symbolism at the end. Bruce Wayne's relationship with Dawes never really feels believable, and Lucius feels a little underused. Bale does have a lot of fun playing Wayne though. Batman himself does disappoint a little, and you can never truly understand his objections to taking a life, especially when Gotham is falling apart at the seams. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 06:12
|
|
|
Just way too much stuff they tried to pack into the movie. As soon as I was starting to enjoy a scene or a storyline it would immediately cut to another one. And so many of the scenes are interlaced with police officers shouting at each other and rushing around with "suspenseful" music that the movie starts to turn into white noise. It gets to the point where it's hard to distinguish between an important and climatic scene and a transitional scene since the tone and pace of the movie are unchanging, the movie being one frenetic whirl. People like to poo poo on the 90s Batman movies, and granted, I haven't seen them in a long time, but I remember the movies being more careful in exposing the storyline, rather than being a relentless assault of thumping noise and hyperactive imagery. I'm just disappointed because I feel this movie could've been amazing if only they edited the movie better, cutting unnecessary scenes and subplots, and expanding on the more important ones. And as some people have said, Batman's voice and lines are painfully bad in contrast to Ledger's brilliant interpretation of the Joker, who's the best thing about the movie. Yes, the Joker is brilliant and as many people have noted, one of the best villains to ever hit the screen. Through a film whose greatness is wildly inconsistent, the one constant is the loving awesomeness of the Joker. 3/5 Ortho Stice fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Jul 21, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 07:58
|
|
|
Nitpick about the Scarecrow: Why the hell was the Scarecrow in the first 10 minutes randomly selling drugs out of a van? Also, using his super freak out weapon on a lame copycat batman was also another wtf. The Scarecrow has failed horribly to provide a sufficient amount of menace. He flops from reaper of sanity to Batman letting him go freely like some purse snatcher. I never read the comics, but was his arching always this lame? I'm also with the crowd who says this was about as good as Batman Begins. The Joker was amazing, same with Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent. Bale sounds terrible in costume, ...still. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2008 08:54
|
|
|
This movie would have been great if it would have been shaved down by about an hour. Seriously, film has been about quality. Not quantity. I had no qualms with anything in particular about this movie other than the fact that it's obtuse length gave it this directionless meandering quality. There were too many plot deviations and turns and I didn't feel that it was focused enough. I felt that too much was being crammed into what is really a very simple and linear storyline. The acting was great of course. The film just seemed crowded. Too many characters with too little screen time. Batman was barely in the movie. I just don't get it. They're taking this too seriously. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 06:45
|
|
|
Great movie, but others have made some really good points. Could use some time shaving. Get rid of that worthless Rachel character altogether. I guess they did though  She was pointless in both movies. They might as well just rename her Plot Device #3. I did notice the extra growling by Bale, but it wasn't so bad to make me hate the movie. Also, the pacing seemed pretty non stop. They managed to cram a lot of action into the time they had, but they had to sacrifice what could have been some meaningful dialogue. If it wasn't for Ledger's Joker, this movie would start to look like Shoot Em Up.Ledger was great. The first half of the movie I was thinking to myself "I hope this gets better because the Joker seems kind of boring/not well acted." And then it did, in a huge way. I guess it was just the way the movie was written, but as I was watching it I kind of suddenly became aware of how awesome Ledger was as the Joker. I'm pretty ADD when it comes to watching movies, but whenever he had some dialogue I found myself just staring at the screen. Watching every detail in his face. It was that good. Random "what the hell?" moment: Got the Joker in custody? Ok, instead of locking him up, leave one random unarmed cop in the room with him so he can easily escape! Oh, and could you make the cop an idiot who thinks he can beat up a psychopath that kills people for fun? Thanks! Favorite scene: Joker coming out of the hospital in the nurse's outfit doing that crazy little walk, turning around waiting for the big bang and just shrugging his shoulders a couple times like "where's my fireworks?" then mashing the button until he gets them. Funny and creepy at the same time. Pros: Ledger as the Joker, Dent's character was well acted too Cons: Too much action requiring a sacrifice in plot/dialogue, gets a bit preachy in a very dumbed down good/evil way 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2008 14:24
|
|
|
Dickwit posted:In the context of superhero movies this one is definitely the new benchmark. While a lot of the technogizmos at Batman's disposal sometimes feel a little silly, the film's main themes of heroism and morality really made this work. Absolutely. This was the first and only comic book movie where I felt I could lose myself in the storyline without having to balk at the obvious downplay of reality for simplicity, and this includes its predecessor. With a couple of exceptions where the dialogue went a little over the top (the good vs evil talk when the Joker was hanging upside down being the main and most cringe inducing offender), the script was top notch and crossed the line thoroughly from kiddie fiction to actual drama. Not a small task when your subject matter is a man dressed as a bat. Since you've already heard about it a thousand and fifteen times, I'll have to echo the overwhelming sentiment of most obvious tag of the movie: Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was great. While I have no objections to most of the adjectives that are thrown around describing it, brilliant, effective, chilling, and morbidly captivating, he is without a doubt assisted by the underrated and genius placing orchestrated by a director that added volumes to his chaotic glee by making him appear in most gasp inducing ways. All of the tensest moments were graced with his psychotic, whimsical presence and he alternated by turning your blood cold or providing comic relief you were a little uncomfortable laughing at. Could his character have singlehandedly carried the movie the way Jack Nicholson did twenty years ago? I don't know, but luckily, there's no real desire to find out. He appeared with a bang and squeezed the most out of every second of camera time, both with overwhelming dramatics and subtle details. But he was really just a macabre shaped piece in a well crafted picture. The most marked improvement over, well, any superhero movie ever was the depth of the plot line. From the neat little touch of the Batman impersonators getting their cages rattled trying to get a taste of vigilante justice to the disturbed and horrible videos by which the Joker communicated his sick messages, you really couldn't help but feel you were watching something more the grade of Heat. Instead of uninteresting contrivances that shuffled the story to its conclusion, you were presented with honest to God plot continuity and reasonable motivations. The characters didn't just exist to say poignant tripe about the nature of virtue before defusing the proton ray from Planet X. They were human and were fueled by rage, love, whimsy, or money, and their actions were shaped by that. As a corollary, the movie did hit on some moral dilemmas and societal statements, and although those were not quite as effective, they did flesh out the Batman vs. Gotham City dynamic pretty well. It was a mostly incidental detail with regard to plot development, but it was nice to see it handled in a balanced and at least superficially contemplative and open ended manner. One of the few downsides was that the constantly frenetic pace carried on a little bit too long, and by the end you're a little worn out from everything that was thrown at you, but this is a relatively minor flaw. A surprisingly good effort "growing up" the genre. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 03:06
|
|
|
I guess I'm mostly piling on, but I'll feel less giddy after having gushed a little (goodness!). A dangerously overhyped movie turned out to generously meet my expectations. While the plot was massively crowded, something that was deadly for other comic book movies (ie, Spider-Man 3), and notable events were sometimes laid out in a single shot, I felt the pace was well possible to keep up with. It also made Gotham much more real, something that other Batman movies never managed as far as I'm concerned. Lastly, it didn't tire me out, despite going through enough acts for two movies. Admittedly I very much wanted to like the actors and their characters, but not to waste too many words on it anymore - Heath Ledger, my favorite Joker. I've seen some criticism of Aaron Eckhart, but I felt he did a spectacular job, but had the plot been split into two movies, he might've had longer to flesh out Harvey Dent's underlying frustrations and desire to handle Batman's methods. The build-up to his full frontal reveal as Two-Face was great, but the CGI involved in his face did not convince me one bit. Seemed kind of low quality, or maybe I just couldn't believe the way his face still operated, laid bare like that. More use of practical effects, make-up, would've been preferable, I think. Still hope we'll see him again, if possible! Maggie Gyllenhaal, not a hottie, but casts a vast shadow over Katie Holmes and was both convincing and sympathetic, for me. Christian Bale? He gets the job done... I'm not as crazy about him as an actor anymore. Maybe just personal preference. And Gary Oldman, much stronger this time as things get personal. Excellent. The Dark Knight frequently had me strained against my chair. I felt all bets were off, anyone might die here. Getting one of those non-predictable movie experiences is a rarity these days. I'm sure plenty of people here weren't surprised by anything in the movie, but I certainly don't envy them. I think this here will be my favorite comic book movie ever, and possibly favorite action movie as well. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 20:38
|
|
|
Everything that can be said has been said already. Although I found that I was pretty unmoved by the romantic subplot. I didn't feel anything when Rachael died 4/5 Pro: JOKER Cons: Silly Batman voice and ineffective romance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 04:43
|
|
|
Pros: Has a good plot I had a good seat Gary Oldman Jokers make up Set design was nice The fact a legendary cocksman plays the stuffy butler Cons: Maggie Gyllenhaal is ugly and has old woman jowls Ledger was good but overhyped Batman's scowl, voice and lack of any charisma at all 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Seen this twice. Once normal screen, once IMAX. IMAX is BY FAR superior. I kept thinking to myself, "I hope to be a billionaire one day to have my own private IMAX and force production companies to produce in this format because I have a raging hardon right now." Lots of small things kind of slip by in the normal screen version but the IMAX just gives you tons of tidbits here and there. I loved the movie and saddened that Heath cant make a return (RIP). I overall was more entranced by the song and dance that kept up throughout the entire movie than the actual ending. And irony: Batman can fall 50 stories and land on a car pretty much unscathed but cant take a 3 story fall without knocking himself out? Even with the ending, the entire movie delivers and is one of the best movies I've seen in years. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2008 16:01
|
|
