[Heccubus]

The phrase I've heard thrown around a lot is "Apocalypto Lite".

[Legion]

No, Pathfinder was Apocalypto Lite. 10 000 BC was Pathfinder For Pussies.

[Jane Sherwood]

I just got home from watching it.

Go see it.

Go see it now.

The whole thing, it's just, it's incredible. Absolutely incredible. This is NOT a comic book movie. This is a work of art. This is an example of what movies should be. And the Joker, the Joker...

IT WAS THE JOKER.

I know, I know I'm babbling and am probably far too over-excited about the whole thing, emotions still running high and all, everything I want to say is running through my head too fast to make sense of it, and everything's probably coming out in clichés and repeated hype and I know I'm no expert on movies or the Batman franchise/mythos/whatever you would call it but I'm a Joker FAN. I love that twisted, psychotic clown, and dear sweet god he WAS the Joker. Any doubt I had about Heath Ledger when he was first cast or at any point during production, before and after his death, I take it all back and apologize. He took the character and he gave him life, he made him real, and most importantly, he did him justice and showed him respect. He was terrifying, hilarious in all the wrong ways, genius, and complete, utterly, BAT-SHIT FUCKING INSANE. Absolutely brilliant.

Just, just, I cannot and will not say anything against him on this. I won't.

And yes, there is so much to be said about the other characters, the story, the brilliant writing, everything...but to be completely and perfectly honest, the main thing, the ONE THING that has made me want to see this movie since the very last minutes of Batman Begins is the Joker. And Heath Ledger delivered him in spades.

I am a happy fan.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Jane, you're right.

You're absolutely right. That movie was good. Brilliant. If you do not watch The Dark Knight, your life has been hollow and worthless.

I'm a comic book fan. I know Joker. And Heath WAS The Joker.

I swear, after that, I'm going to have to start method acting, because that was a brilliant performance. And if method acting gives us that, and regular acting gives us Nicholson, I'm signing up for method.

I'm an expert on comics. Give me a Joker quote, I'll cite it.

And I can say with even more expertise than Janey that that was what Joker SHOULD be. That was what Joker IS. Madness. Madness personified. I loved the thing about his scarring. How he changed his story. Some people would call that bad writing. That was brilliant. That was Joker.

But I'm not a Joker fan. I'm a Two-Face fan.

And I felt the one thing better than the fact that Heath WAS Joker was that Two-Face WASN'T. Not only did I see the respect for Joker in that movie, I saw respect for that.

I saw his heroism. I could almost HEAR his mind snap when he saw the coin scratched up. But he wasn't a villain. He wasn't Joker insane.

That... Last movie that had Two-Face in it... Two-Face had been Joker with new makeup. Here, he was Two-Face. The white knight fallen, not the dark lord risen.

I was impressed by Batman Begins.

But after that movie, to paraphrase the Harvey Dent election campaign, referencing Long Halloween...

I believe in Christopher Nolan.

[civilian_number_two]

I liked the look and tone of BATMAN BEGINS, and I really liked Christian Bale, but I hated everything about the story. I hated that they cast an Irishman to play the Persian villain Ra's al Ghul. I hated that more people (including the entire League of Shadows) got to know Batman's secret identity. I hated that Jim Gordon was reduced to comic relief. I hated that Bruce Wayne burnt down Wayne Manor. I hated that everything to do with making Batman the hero that he was came from some external force, from his ninja training to his coincidental discovery that Wayne Enterprises had independantly designed a batsuit and a small tank. I especially hated all that. But that's all in the past.

THE DARK KNIGHT is great. Heath Ledger, yeah, makes a great joker, but more importantly the story is on the ball. There are a few moments of impossible ingenuity (the Joker sure has no trouble hiding bombs everywhere), but overall it's a delight to suspend disbelief. It won't surprise anyone here that I wasn't 100% happy with the resolution of the Two-Face story, but I am happy with where they are pointing the sequel.

[J m HofMarN]

The feeling that I came away from this movie with was one of awe. After several sequences I kept thinking the movie was over. Not in the way that I hoped it was over, but in the way that I thought "Ok, how can they top this, how does he get out of this" etc. Then it came right back and the result was that I didnt feel I'd been watching a movie I'd gone to see so much as that I'd seen something completely new that I couldnt quite have expected. There is an incredible cast of characters in this thing and all of them feel three dimensional. What Spider Man 3 failed miserably at, this film does perfectly.

I noticed the joker changing his story, and that made sense. He isnt going to give people insights into his character, except for the fact that a right lot of nonsense is an insight into his character. The movie itself seemed to be pervaded by a sense of the unexpected that would have made its principal villain giggle with glee.

One problem I had was that for a complete psycho the Joker really has all his bases covered no matter what. It's a little convenient to be able to load up a zillion gallons of gas into buildings or boats or hospitals at the drop of a hat. But yeah, suspension of disbelief. The bombs and car chases are not the focus of the movie, there's a lot of morality questions, and they go beyond a comic book understanding of good and evil.

Also, the laughs. There are plenty of them (maybe only if you ahve a dark sense of humor) but they come from the movie, and are not injected through silly quips or what have you. So even the humorous asides roll nicely into the greater plot and feel.

One last comment, we finally have a villain whose killing of his own men makes a goddamn bit of sense. In some movies it's used just to demonstrate that the villain is a bad ass because the weak writers cant find a better way to do so. Here it says something about the character and isnt just used for shock value or as exposition. Very nice!

[TheOrator]

Fantastic movie. Really damn fantastic. Joker was great, Batman was great, Two-Face was too short.

He's not dead. He can't be. I won't accept it. Reason for my denial:
They lied about Harvey to protect his heroic image so that the Joker could be proven wrong. But the Joker also said Batman would break his one rule that night. Since Batman pushed Harvey off the building, he would be responsible if he died. So if he died THE JOKER WOULD BE RIGHT ALL ALONG. AND THAT WOULD BE AWFUL.

Also, Two-Face is my favorite.

Favorite moment (but not favorite part):

I'm gonna make this pencil disappear!

[Lord Aquaman]

Just saw Dark Knight today, the theater was nearly packed, which is rare for a Monday. The film is nothing less than a masterpiece. The late Heath Ledger was undeniably creepy as the hateful, heartless, lip-licking, cackling Joker (and trust me, he does a great job of making you hate the Joker), while Aaron Eckhart delivers a powerful performance as the doomed DA Harvey Dent/2-Face. Christian Bale is of course still good as the Batman with the always welcomed Gary Oldman, Michael Caine & Morgan Freeman reprising their roles as Gordon, Alfred & Fox. Maggie Gyllenhaal lends nice support in the Rachel Dawes role originated by Katie Holmes (who is sadly better known now as Mrs. Tom Cruise #3).

Can't wait for the next one... and it had better have Catwoman/Selina Kyle in it.

If only they could make a Superman film half as good as Dark Knight...

Now... can we PLEASE have some DC heroes who are not Batman and/or Superman in a big summer blockbuster?

[Otal Nimrodi]

Just saw Dark Knight today, the theater was nearly packed, which is rare for a Monday. The film is nothing less than a masterpiece. The late Heath Ledger was undeniably creepy as the hateful, heartless, lip-licking, cackling Joker (and trust me, he does a great job of making you hate the Joker), while Aaron Eckhart delivers a powerful performance as the doomed DA Harvey Dent/2-Face. Christian Bale is of course still good as the Batman with the always welcomed Gary Oldman, Michael Caine & Morgan Freeman reprising their roles as Gordon, Alfred & Fox. Maggie Gyllenhaal lends nice support in the Rachel Dawes role originated by Katie Holmes (who is sadly better known now as Mrs. Tom Cruise #3).

Can't wait for the next one... and it had better have Catwoman/Selina Kyle in it.

If only they could make a Superman film half as good as Dark Knight...

Now... can we PLEASE have some DC heroes who are not Batman and/or Superman in a big summer blockbuster?

Watchmen? =3

[civilian_number_two]

Good answer, although technically they were Charleston Comic heroes adapted by a freelance author who published under the DC banner. But yeah, I still hold out hope that that will be a good movie ... ... ...

[TruJade]

The Dark Knight made my life!!!!
it was soo good is it would have lasted for ever

I loved Heath Ledger and it really makes the whole thing worse
but i totally understand the Oscar talk, the Joker was done right.

as for Watchmen i dont know much
but ill see it

[Heccubus]

The Watchmen and Terminator (shush) trailers made me grin like a retard, and then the actual film just made my whole fucking week.
My fiancee asked why I seemed disappointed afterward, and (I can't believe I actually said something this dumb) I replied: "I didn't want it to end."

[TruJade]

thats ok at the end
when the screen went black
and Dark Knight came aross the screen
i said "Simply Fabulous" loudly
it was rather embarassing but at the time i didnt care

[Otal Nimrodi]

Good answer, although technically they were Charleston Comic heroes adapted by a freelance author who published under the DC banner. But yeah, I still hold out hope that that will be a good movie ... ... ...

Well, it looks good.

Except for Evil!Ozy.

[Just your average movie goer]

All right. It is high time that this movie was taken down a notch. The internet is ablaze with reviews saying that this is the greatest thing ever, a vastly superior sequel and how it's just goddamn brilliant. More disturbing to me is the complete lack of any counter argument.

There is a real pack mentality with regards to the discussion of this movie and any brave reviewer who dares to express that they didn't think the movie was as wonderful as everyone else did is quickly jumped on by a pack of vicious fanboys. I imagine Christopher Nolan, though pleased with his success as he surely is, must be deeply ashamed by the appaling behaviour. All the responses to negative reviews I have seen flow along the lines of A ) the reviewer doesn't represent the majority and must therefore be bludgeoned to death or B ) the reviewer is simply trying to make themselves stand out by taking a contrary view. This kind of mob mentality stifles any intelligent discussion and as someone who does not like the movie himself, I'd like to post my own review and tip the balance in my own small way.

Far from being the masterpiece that many people claim The Dark Knight to be, I found it to be more akin to a train wreck. While others left the cinemas saying their expectations were met and exceeded, my thoughts were that the film had successfully buried a promising franchise in its infancy.

This review contains spoilers so if you have not seen the movie yet, you may not wish to read ahead.

The Dark Knight starts appalingly badly and if there is one thing that one should get right when making a movie, it's the beginning. First impressions really set the tone and as far as first impressions go, it was not good. The very first thing that struck me was that Gotham City was absent. Batman Begins had done a remarkable job of creating a city that while it appeared realistic had a distinctive feel to it that was wholly its own. In this movie however, I immediately thought I was looking at Chicago. When I later learned that this really was Chicago, my disdain grew considerably. Some people referred to it as "a cleverly disguised Chicago" but if its instantly recognisable then I don't see how that could be. The first film apparently was partly filmed in Chicago too but it wasn't never apparent. Also, they built an extensive set for Gotham City. However, it doesn't look as though any such efforts were made here.

What made this worse was that this was one of the problems that dragged the previous series down. Every movie, it appeared that Batman was in another city. That kind of inconsistency makes it very difficult to reconcile sequels with their predecessors; and in fact at no point in The Dark Knight could I reconcile it with Batman Begins. I do wish film producers would occasionally watch their original films and take notes before working on sequels.

After I accepted the fact that Gotham City was not going to be in this movie, I was somewhat less excited about the movie (and I had been counting down the days prior to seeing it actually) but I watched on with an open mind. The sequence that began the movie however was very strange. It would have worked if the Joker worked alone for the rest of the movie but it seemed that throughout the film, he had an endless supply of goons who were willing to whatever he wanted. How could that possibly be if he knocked off everyone who worked for him? There were plenty of people connected with the mob he was robbing who witnessed these killings and it really wouldn't have taken much effort to put the word out on him. Yet he always seemed to have a small army of thugs at his disposal.

The other problem with the scene is the way it ends. When the Joker drives the school bus out of the bank and joins the line of other school buses, it was rather obvious. Surely the driver of the next bus behind him would have thought something was suspicious about the way it just bust out of a bank.

However, this really pales in comparison to the introduction of Batman. It was a dreadful scene and I felt as though I were watching a Shrek sequel when I saw it. There was a pointless cameo by the scarecrow which seemed like a half hearted attempt to link this film with the previous one; and then there were the Bat imitators. In the confusing mess, it was really difficult to tell who the real Batman was and who the phonies were. Also, I don't mind the idea that Batman inspired copycat vigilantes but I detest the fact that they all chose to dress in Batsuits. Also the fact that they were all overweight nerdy types didn't help matters. I also had another major problem with this scene. Here, the phoney Batmen were played for laughs; yet later in the film, one is captured by the joker, tortured in some home video reminiscent of an Iraqi hostage video and hanged. I was really appalled by this. You can say I'm too sensitive if you wish but I found the sadism in this movie to be really over-the-top. If I want to see somebody get hanged, I'll watch a period piece, thank you very much. If I want to see a terrorist hostage video, I'll watch some movie about war correspondents that I know is intended to be disturbing from the outset. If I'm watching a film about Batman, I should be able to assume with a reasonable degree of certainty that I'm not going to see any such things. This movie didn't pull a lot of punches but there were more than a few occasions when it should have.

After Batman appears, the next big disappointment was when he spoke. Christian Bale had clearly lost his grasp of the voice and it sounded as though they were unable to find the original actor when he spoke. There were also frequent occasions when it was incomprehensible. Throughout the entire movie in fact, Batman came off very flat and it was hard to really get behind him. I rather got the impression that Mr Bale was bored with the role and was just phoning in his lines. In one scene, Hervey Dent and Lieutenant Gordan are talking about using Batman to extract a criminal from Hong Kong when Batman is standing right next to them; looking for all the world like a piece of furniture.

Next item, the introduction of Bruce Wayne. While Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person, I believe good introductions are needed for both as they are very separate sides of the man. The introduction to Bruce Wayne was very uninspired. He should have been introduced in his playboy guise, making an entrance somewhere. Instead, he was in the basement stitching up an injury inflicted on him by rotweillers (more on that later). My problem with this is that Bruce Wayne never seems to be doing much in his scenes. Throughout the entire movie, he just appeared momentarily here and there as he dashed between one Batman appearance to the next. One of the strengths of the first movie was that they made Bruce Wayne a compelling character in himself. Because of that, when he was onscreen, we weren't just waiting for Batman to come back. In The Dark Knight however, the fleeting scenes in which he appears diminish his importance and so a character that I had really invested in throughout the previous movie appeared to be left by the wayside.

Next item, the sadism. The level of cruelty that is inflicted on various people throughout the movie is so disgusting, it really detracted from the movie for me. When the Joker put a knife in someone's mouth and drew it slowly through their cheeks, I instantly thought to myself that this was not something that I would care to watch again. The same goes for the terrorist video and the hanging scene. I also felt that way about the manner in which Rachel Dawes was killed off. I didn't like the fact that they killed her although if that was all they did, I could have accepted it. I mean, we're not supposed to like the fact that an innocent character gets killed afterall. But the way they had her waiting in uncertainty, all alone as the timer ticked down was particularly cruel.

Now, since I'm talking about Rachel, I have to wonder why they included her at all. She didn't have anything to do in this movie except act as a plot device for Hervey's Dent's story arc (what little there was). It seemed strange that her relationship to Bruce Wayne had changed so drastically since the last movie (although admittedly, we have no idea how much time was supposed to have elapsed between the two films) and as they made her even more irritatingly sanctimonious than she had been in the previous film, I couldn't help wondering why they had bothered bringing in a better actress at all. Better to have left her out entirely and just say that she never really crossed paths with Bruce any more. I mean, people grow apart. It's perfectly plausible.

All right, let's have a look at Hervey now. This part of the movie had me scratching my head more than all the other flaws combined. Here, the movie broke one of the most important rules of good film making: show, don't tell. It seemed that every five minutes, somebody was spouting a line about Hervey being Gotham's white knight but we never really saw him doing anything to warrant this. It was touching when he turned himself in as Batman but some more character development earlier would have been appreciated. Fortunately for the film though, Aaron Eckhardt gave such a strong performance that I still fell for it and his scenes at the end of the film where he is scarred and in the hospital are really emotionally wrenching. They did a good job with the two-face makeup as well; as instead of giving him a comic-book appearance, they gave him realistic and horrific burn scars that really made you feel pity for the character.

However, at the end of the movie, it all seemed like gratuitous cruelty as after putting Hervey Dent (and the audience) through all of that, his character was killed off after a few short scenes killing people we couldn't really give a damn about. That's a problem one can expect in a movie which has far too many characters and doesn't pay enough attention to them. Anyway, I felt really cheated as I had been under the impression that they had been building Hervey Dent up to be the villian in the third movie. The whole time I had been curious to see how the transformation would take place but in the end, they seemed to just skip it. One moment, Hervey Dent was killing people who no doubt deserved it and the next, he was holding Gordon's family hostage.

I also hated the way Batman broke his only rule and killed him; not because it happened but because it was so contrived. And when Batman says "He was the best of us.", it felt very artificial.

Another problem with the Hervey Dent story is how he and Rachel get captured in the first place. It just happens and is never properly explained. It just seems to be part of the Joker's magical 'Aura of Joker' that he has going on. There is a lot of this in the movie. The most ridiculous part had to be the Joker's escape from prison. When he was chasing the police vehicles under the impression that Batman was Hervey Dent, he seemed to magically anticipate that his plan would go awry and in the space of a moment, arranged to have a prisoner with a mobile phone bomb implanted in his chest placed in the police holding cells for when he arrived there. For a guy who loved chaos, he sure seemed to have a knack for thinking fifty moves ahead of his opposition. When he escapes from prison and has one hundred hostages and that thing with the boats set up, I lost any inclination to care. It seemed that the whole movie's plot had reached the point where it could be boiled down to "The Joker drives Batman crazy and does lots of pointless bad things".

Then there was the ending. The ending was awful in some ways and strangely appropriate in others. If you were going to bury a movie franchise with a hatchet, this was probably the most effective way to do it. I'm referring now of course to Batman taking the fall for Hervey Dent. First of all, with all the chaos the Joker unleashed, it's hard to believe that anybody would even notice the death of however many (or few) cops that Hervey Dent killed. They could very easily have said they were simply more casualties of the mess that had engulfed the entire city. However, if they didn't want to do that, then they should have just pinned the murders on the Joker. Nobody would doubt it if they did.

Also Batman's plan completely negates the premise of his plan in the first movie to become an incorruptable and everlasting symbol. When Batman was running away from the dogs at the end of the movie, it seemed that there was no reason for him to come back at all. The entire movie seemed to be, if anything, anti-Batman; suggesting that perhaps the best thing for Batman to do was to lie low and let the proper authorities handle things as he only made the problem worse. Go ahead and tell me that was the point of the film if you want. I'll believe you. However, if it was the point, then I can't understand why they made the movie at all. In fact, for most of the movie, I thought Gotham City no longer needed Batman. Gotham City needed the National Guard, the Army and martial law. Or perhaps, Rhas Al Ghul had been right in Batman Begins and the city was beyond saving afterall. I certainly thought so by the end of that mess.

It was such a downbeat and miserable experience after the first movie. It was all shade and no light and only served to destroy what had been established at the end of Batman Begins. The Empire didn't strike back in this sequel. It decimated the rebellion and ended the war; and Batman lost.

Also, I hated the use of dogs in this movie. It really took me out of the experience and I don't think Batman beating up dogs is something I can approve of. In some ways, I was almost glad they were chasing him away at the end of the film.

Now, before I close, I want to say that I didn't think the movie was without its merits. It wasn't. There were many things that I was impressed with. First and foremost was Heath Ledger's performance. It was enthralling and whenever he was on the screen, I was completely caught up with his character. In fact, I have no desire to see Jack Nicholson's Joker again after seeing this. I completely agree with the hype regarding Heath Ledger and if nothing else, the movie serves as a reminder of what was lost in that New York apartment the day he died.

However, as good as he is, he overshadowed everyone else in the film, including the title character which was a problem. I also believe some people can't separate his performance from the film itself. A good performance doesn't make a film good. It helps certainly but more is required.

Aaron Eckhardt as I mentioned earlier gave a strong performance and despite the flawed way in which the script handled his character arc, he won my sympathy and emotions through his skills as actor.

I also was impressed by the scene where the convict takes the detonator from the guard on the boat and throws it over the side. It was a very powerful moment.

As for impressive action scenes, the extradition operation in Hong Kong was an amazing sequence and was thrilling to watch.

Also, the scene in which the Joker taunts Batman in the police interrogation room is very well handled. I really felt Batman's frustration as he realised he had no power over the man.

All in all, I actually thought the film had a lot of strong parts; which may surprise you given the nature of the rest of this review. However, I didn't think they worked as a whole. Overall, it felt like an overly long incoherent mess where I was asked to suspend disbelief far too much and tolerate a gruesome amount of cruelty, while receiving no gratifying payoff in return for my investment. As for how good the movie is, it's a hard call and I had quite a hard time working out my own feelings about it. I thought a lot of it was strong but I didn't enjoy it at all; and this is a problem for me. I tend to look more favourably on movies that I'd be likely to want to watch again and again.

In conclusion, I think it's probably a better movie than I think it is but far short of deserving the praise that the rest of the Internet community is heaping on it.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 30 July 2008 - 07:21 AM