The Dark Knight
Movie Review
"The Dark Knight"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A-
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, July 18, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
Saying that "The Dark Knight" is a superhero movie based on a comic book character is like saying "The Godfather" is a crime drama based on a novel: technically accurate yet woefully inadequate.
Christopher Nolan's new adventure, a sequel to his game-changing "Batman Begins," is darker, more frightening, and more complex than any superhero film to date. In fact, the difference between "The Dark Knight" and its previous genre-mates is so pronounced that it's almost useless to describe it in the usual "superhero movie" terms. Is it fun? Well, yeah -- but more Martin Scorsese fun than Steven Spielberg fun. Is it exciting? Yes, certainly -- but more "psychological nightmare" than "roller coaster."
Nolan, who co-wrote the film with his brother Jonathan, with story assistance from genre veteran David S. Goyer, shot it primarily in Chicago, resulting in a Gotham that looks like a real city (with daylight and everything!), rather than the elaborate facades of the earlier films (including "Batman Begins"). This is crucial, as "The Dark Knight" explores real-world fears and real-world consequences, and those play out more effectively on the drab, ordinary streets of a real metropolis than they do on a lavishly designed sound stage.
Only a few months have passed since the events of "Batman Begins." Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is living in a penthouse apartment while Wayne Manor is rebuilt, and his lifelong love Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes) is still in the district attorney's office. In fact, following her usual pattern, she is dating the new D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), an honest man and former cop who's being praised as Gotham's white knight. He's here to clean up the corruption and organized crime that have plagued the city, and that includes taking down mob boss Salvatore Maroni (Eric Roberts).
Batman has made a splash, too, albeit a more controversial one. Some praise him as a do-gooder while others say he's a dangerous vigilante. He has inspired copycats. Gotham's police department, now with Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) heading up the Major Crimes Unit, officially regards Batman as a criminal for whom there is a standing arrest warrant. Unofficially, there's that bat-logo searchlight on top of police headquarters.
Apart from the Mafia, Gotham's newest plague is the Joker (Heath Ledger), a clown-faced lunatic with a fondness for bank robberies and a flair for the dramatic. How crazy is the Joker? Crazy enough to steal from the Maroni crime family, and then crazy enough to walk into their lair and tell them that Batman is their real problem, not him. And crazy enough to get away with it all.
Ledger's death has certainly inspired more than its share of weepy, hyperbolic testimonials, but make no mistake: People would be buzzing about this performance even if he were still alive. He inhabits the cruel, merciless Joker in a way that's never less than riveting, a genuinely terrifying (and fascinating) performance that instantly catapults him into the upper echelon of Hollywood's greatest movie villains.
(But once again the ordinary terms fail us. He's not really a "villain." Lex Luthor is a "villain." Jack Nicholson's Joker was a "villain." Ledger's Joker is a monster, more akin to Hannibal Lecter than the Penguin, more like the evil Emperor than Darth Vader.)
Ledger's performance is the perfect marriage of an actor unafraid to take risks -- you stand a good chance of just looking silly when you do this, after all -- and a screenplay that's bold enough to paint the character not as a campy menace but as a shockingly brutal scourge of humanity. He murders as easily as he cracks jokes, and he's sociopathic enough to not see a difference in scale between the two. I was unable to take my eyes off him whenever he was on the screen ... which means my mind has a good store of visual material ready for when the nightmares come.
Nolan has packed the film with a dense storyline and multiple layers of thematic depth, all to wonderful effect. This is the first Batman movie to really address the character as a symbol, as an ideal. Batman insists he has his limits. He will not kill a criminal. He favors law and order -- yet he is, technically, a criminal himself, acting outside the law and even, sometimes, outside the bounds of ethics. But the Joker, representing chaos and randomness, not to mention pure, unfiltered evil, is what throws everything off-balance. He doesn't follow any rules whatsoever, and that separates him even from the Mafia (which is, after all, highly organized and structured).
The Joker, like the devil himself, wants everyone to delight in chaos the way he does. In his delusional mania, he believes that mankind is inherently amoral, that Joker-style anarchy is our ultimate destiny. And that's one of the film's questions: Is he right? Are we more like the Joker, or more like Batman, or more like the gallant Harvey Dent? And come to think of it, isn't it Dent -- who never breaks any laws and is willing to show his face to the public -- who's the real opposite of the Joker, not Batman? In some respects, Batman has more in common with the bad guys than he does with the good guys. And don't for a moment think that this dichotomy is lost on Bruce Wayne.
The film is epic in every sense of the word, covering a dizzying array of complicated characters and moral questions while functioning as a fast-paced action flick, too. Even Wayne Enterprises CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Alfred the butler (Michael Caine) are faced with quandaries that lie beyond the usual scope of their duties. Like the greatest crime dramas, "The Dark Knight" presents actions as having consequences, and consequences as requiring further action. It's a comic-book movie with real-world applications.
There's a point in the film where the story seems to be wrapping up, and where the running time has certainly been sufficient to call it a day. And then the film continues for another 45 minutes. This is where complaints of "it's too long" will come into play, and at first I thought I might agree with that.
But upon further reflection, I see that it's in this last act -- the part that, story-wise, could have been fodder for the next sequel -- that all the themes come together. The film could have ended earlier and felt complete, but it's much more satisfying this way, with all the characters firmly set on the paths of their own making, and with one last Batman/Joker face-off cementing the ideas that have been on the film's mind the whole time.
Even if this doesn't turn out to be the best film of the year, it will almost certainly have been the most darkly thought-provoking and viscerally stimulating. The performances, while overshadowed by Ledger's punchy brilliance, are all sharp, even when (as in the case of Rachel Dawes) the characters are underwritten. Nolan has shot "The Dark Knight" with the utmost confidence, and with a gleefully morbid sense of fun that prevents it from becoming oppressively bleak. This isn't your grandfather's Batman. I don't know whose it is, but I like it.
Grade: A-
Rated PG-13, a lot of violence, some of it somewhat graphic, some gruesome images, and general fear and menace -- this is NOT a movie for kids
2 hrs., 32 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 79 comments
July 17, 2008 at 2:58 am
That was one great review! Full of enough descriptive statements and praise that if I wasn't already psyched to see this movie, I would be. I'm also extremely glad that you say it's as good as I thought and hoped it would be. Ledger's performance gave me chills just from the preview, and I'm glad it carries through the entire movie and wasn't just edited to appear creepy and well, evil. I can't wait until this fine film makes its way to my small speck on the map!
July 17, 2008 at 3:48 am
arthur the butler?
anything you write on the review is automatically cancel by that, if you don't know the name of batman butler you're no qualify to have an opinion
July 17, 2008 at 5:28 am
AT LAST! 25 hours and 33 minutes!!
July 17, 2008 at 5:54 am
I don't know Eric....an A-? You'd better watch out for the public stoning...... ;)
You've convinced me that I need to see "The Dark Knight" more than I need to see "Mamma Mia"!!!
July 17, 2008 at 8:32 am
"anything you write on the review is automatically cancel by that"
Hey - do you have two sisters? Or two sons? Have you ever called one by the other's name by mistake? "Alfred" and "Arthur" are like that. Who cares? One mistake (fixed immediately, by the way) doesn't automatically discount his review anymore than your near-artistic misuse of punctuation.
July 17, 2008 at 8:55 am
...and tense, and general spelling.
July 17, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Eric- I have to know. A lot of people are talking Oscar for Ledger, I was worried that it was just over-praise because of his death but do you think it is possible?
July 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Eric's description of the movie makes me think of alignments from Dungeons and Dragons.
For those not in the know, alignments in D&D define your character's moral and ethical outlook. Using a good-evil axis and a law-chaos axis, nine alignments are defined.
It sounds like this movie takes a hard look at the four most extreme alignments.
Harvey Dent represents the Lawful Good alignment
Batman represents the Chaotic Good alignment
Salvatore Maroni represents the Lawful Evil alignment
The Joker represent the Chaotic Evil alignment
OMG I'm such a nerd.
July 17, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Alfred, Albert, either way this is still a well written review.
Chris Nolan has truly captured the Dark Knight. I have not yet seen this movie but plan on seeing it tomorrow. But from the snippets that I have seen it appears that he has finally captured how the Joker (and the other characters as well) has been depicted in the comics over the last 20 years. Don't forget Harvey Dent is Two Face, and from the trailers that I have seen we are in for what seems to be a nice surprise.
We only have Frank Miller to truly thank for that, and the other bold Batman writers and artist. I always thought that if some director would be just as bold as Miller, then maybe we could have a great Batman movie. Well, I say wait no more Nolan has done it. I remember saying to my son that "if they introduce the Joker in this series he needs to be scary and intimating much like the Hannibal character". Based on this review it sounds like they did.
Can't wait to see it!
July 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Stoked.... That is the only word for it. I am.... STOKED.
July 18, 2008 at 1:21 am
Nate the Great writes--
"Eric's description of the movie makes me think of alignments from Dungeons and Dragons."
I was thinking the same thing and wondering if it was intentional. Anyway, wherever dungeoneering intersects with movie going, DM's will now have a nice set of templates to explain alignment!
July 18, 2008 at 3:41 am
I agree. Terrific review. I loved "Batman Begins" and this appears to be even better.
July 18, 2008 at 9:35 am
Just got back. Loved it. It DID feel too long, but I do see why the last part was so necessary too. Like Eric said all about bringing together the themes. But I don't know what they're gonna do without Heath in the next one, now that he has clearly taken away Nicholson's ownership of Jokerness.
July 18, 2008 at 9:49 am
I am bitter. I´m studying in Spain, where all the movies come out 6 weeks later. All my friends are seeing Batman today, but I can´t!
July 18, 2008 at 10:42 am
Just got back from the movie. Your review was spot on Eric. I didn't read your review until after I saw the movie but I agree 100% about the last stanza of the film. I didn't really "get it" while I was watching it, but then when it was over, it fell on me like a ton of bricks. And Ledger's joker... believe the hype. The entire theater was just mesmerized by his performance. This one I will need to see again to truly understand.
July 18, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I have yet to see a Batman movie. I’m not opposed to them. I have meant to see many of them. I just never seemed to make it. I love physiological thrillers, so maybe this one will break my streak. At least that’s what my husband is hoping for. He loves superhero stuff.
He liked what Nate the Great said but added (while pushing his glasses up by the nose bridge): Actually Batman could also be classified as Lawful Neutral – as he does things that are morally questionable but that he believes are in line with his vigilante’s code. Whatever that means.
July 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Well, I hate to rain on the D&D lovefest (oh who am I kidding, I love to rain on that particular pale-skinned orgy) but those archetypes have been around for ages. Dashiell Hammett was writing each of those four characters into the same books before Gary Gygax was even born. Obviously he and the other black mask detective writers didn't outright create that milieu, but those pulp stories are what inspired the original Batman writers, Frank MIller most of all.
Batman has always been the typical noir -- outside of the law with his own personal code -- private detective. The only difference is the suit, the silliness and the gadgets. Nolan, thank heavens, has finally fully tapped that inspiration and made it something great.
July 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm
And to rain even further on the nerd-fest parade, the historian reminds all that those were aspects of the Grecian humoric theories beginning before 600 BC (or to put it into perspective for you Mormon's out there, they are old than Nephi).
It's good to know at least one movie this week with Greek connections didn't suck!
July 18, 2008 at 6:54 pm
It didn't feel too long to me. But then again, I've always been a villain worshiper and the amount of love I have for the Joker is kind of disturbing. It has been a long, long time since I felt like that coming out of a movie. Maybe Return of the King? I don't even know.
July 19, 2008 at 12:16 am
I just got back from seeing this movie, and the theater was silent every time the Joker was on screen (the audience laughed at a few of his lines too). He was absolutely mesmerizing and completely terrifying. His macabre face haunts me even now. The way he would smack his lips and say "The Batman" made it seem like he was completely beyond reason or compassion. Not just for Heath Ledger's performance alone, of all the superhero movies to make it to the big screen this summer, this one is far and away the best.
July 19, 2008 at 12:33 am
Love your review. Agree wholeheartedly. By the end of the film I was exhausted!
July 19, 2008 at 12:47 am
Left the theater a couple hours ago. Exceedingly good film. The philosophizing was a bit transparent and heavy-handed sometimes, but it wasn't made to be subtle. It was beautifully shot, and the grittiness of it all was great.
In the universe of comic book derivatives, this is, far and away, the superior movie.
July 19, 2008 at 1:59 am
Darn. I thought for sure this movie was going to be a bummer.
But, getting an A-, I think I'll go see it now.
July 19, 2008 at 2:37 am
To #14 Homerific. I totally understand. I would hate to miss movie premieres because I HAD to study in Europe.
What a great review. Almost as enjoyable as the F reviews.
July 19, 2008 at 3:21 am
I still don't understand the minus after this A though. Can Eric please tell us more as to why it was knocked down to slots from A+ to be an A-? For length? Cause its a comic book movie and not a "real" movie? I loved every minute of it and thought it was pure gold. Sure Im a nerd who would bear Chris Nolans children if he asked me, and ofcourse I was gonna give it an A+ pretty much no matter what, but in reading your review, I just dont see the spots that drop it to an A-.
July 19, 2008 at 9:44 am
@Bryce:
Google "ineffable tingle", with quotes, and you'll get an answer. Not necessarily the answer, as moviegoing is a subjective experience by any standard.
I just got out of a showing that ended at 2:30 a.m. and am mulling the movie over in my head. It's the sort of movie that I feel I should celebrate, but always with the caveat that I enjoyed it more intellectually than the "oh yeah!" response Begins got from me.
This is a very smart movie and not like your typical hero movie, or even thriller for that matter. It has plenty of action but not the kind that's meant as a reward - none of that unambiguous "Batman vs. the bad guys" stuff that the first film had. I'm automatically biased toward a mainstream movie that challenges its audience.
Audience response for this movie was off-the-charts. The Joker serves as most of the movie's comic relief, as well as the reason that we need the comic relief in the first place. Batman's role is understated and the whole film is shot like a thriller. See Hellboy this week and buy your tickets for The Dark Knight next week when it's not sold out.
July 19, 2008 at 10:15 am
I left the theater about an hour and a half ago. I think Heath Ledger will be in my nightmares for a long time, along with Hannibal and Anton Chigurh. The theater I was at was mostly silent when the Joker was on the screen, except for when he would crack a joke, and then (as in the bit involving a pencil) kill a person with the joke.
I did not think it overlong, though. I also thought that the end of the movie placed far more faith in humanity than the rest of the movie showed. I won't give anything away, but what Batman says at that point was a tad cheesy. That's why the A- by the way. I give it the same, but then again, who cares what I say, I'm not the reviewer.
July 19, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I just saw this last night and it was awesome. If I had cast the parts in the movie, Heath Ledger would not come to mind to play such an evil and crazy person because he's such a heartthrob, but he gave the best performance of any actor I've seen in a long time. Absolutely brilliant. He was almost unrecognizable and so over-the-top creepy that he deserves an Oscar for his work.
I'm disappointed, however that Katie Holmes chose to not reprise her role as Rachel. She actually is beautiful, but when the Joker called Maggie Gyllenhaal beautiful I wanted to barf. Somehow it seems that the pull of gravity is much stronger on her face that other peoples'.
July 19, 2008 at 5:13 pm
[MAJOR SPOILER ALERT]
I loved the throwback to Nicholson's Joker with the plummet near the end, but with Batman instead saving The Joker.
I wonder, with the themes of hero and vigilante so deeply explored in this film, if there's anything left to be told in the Batman universe. And if they were willing to recast Rachel, maybe they'd recast the Joker. Hate to be the actor who takes up that mantle, though.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
July 19, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Wow...I love it when I see a movie and I am still thinking about it the next day. It is not often that I pay money to see a movie in a theatre opening weekend and then actually want to pay to see it again. Last years big openers, Spiderman III and Pirates III were hugely disappointing. This one was not.
I didn't feel like it was too long at all. I felt like it was just getting started. I could have stayed there all night. It's almost a shame that it was so good, because now what can they possibly do for a third installment?
July 19, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I saw this movie yesterday and it was very good. One of the best movies I have seen in the theater in some time. I do have a question that my wife and I were discussing after the movie:
[SPOILER]
When the Joker sends Batman off to rescue either Rachel or Harvey, does Batman choose to rescue Harvey (thinking he's the hero the city needs while choosing Rachel would be selfish) or does he choose to rescue Rachel and is tricked by the Joker into rescuing Harvey instead, thus hastening Harvey's psychological "evolution" and perhaps creating some deeper issues for Batman (thinking he should have chosen Harvey)?
I can see justification either way, and in the movie the information is given and decisions made pretty quickly. After the movie I thought it was one way while my wife interpreted it the opposite. I'm curious if anyone has more/better information.
[END SPOILER]
July 20, 2008 at 1:49 am
I love Heath Ledger and thought I would come away in awe of an Oscar preformance. I did love him but felt that Aaron Eckhart's preformance was just as good and is being overshowed by the Joker. Anyone else think his was the best of the movie?
July 20, 2008 at 4:08 am
Diane, I was a huge fan of Eckhart, too. I thought he did an excellent job. Best of the movie? I don't know/care. Excellent is excellent.
I really enjoyed that they reprised Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow. I think it helped to mesh Batman Begins with this second movie. Thematically, I thought that the messages were really consistent. However, the movie really felt different to me somehow. It seemed more dire and less campy.
I agree that setting the movie in Chicago helped to make it seem more real-to-life, but the person next to me kept making comments about various landmarks in both Chicago and Hong Kong, which distracted me. I wonder how distracting it is to people who live in either of those places?
July 20, 2008 at 5:42 am
[SPOILERS AHOY]
#31 - I just got back from the movie and I thought Batman meant to rescue Rachel. Right as he's leaving the police HQ, Gordon yells after him to ask which person he's going after and he roars "Rachel!" as he grabs the Batpod. I assumed the Joker had planned the switch intentionally, as he later taunts Batman about her death.
I'm still just overwhelmed by this movie and very well may have to see it again to absorb it further. I also loved Aaron Eckhart's performance and was sad to see him not stick around as Two-Face. I was actually pretty convinced that the Joker would be killed somehow and that Two-Face would be the primary villain in the next movie.
Speaking of which: Who else in the Rogue's Gallery will next make an appearance? I pity any actor trying to follow Ledger's performance, but I assume it will have to be done to maintain continuity. I feel like most of the rest of Batman's primary villains (Penguin, Riddler, etc.) will be harder to make plausibly fit into the universe that Nolan has created. Although the Animated Series certainly made it work for Mr. Freeze and the Mad Hatter...
July 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm
For those of you who haven't gone yet, or are going again, watch for the scene where the Batmobile loses its wheel and the Joker gets away. (I desperately wanted to lean over and point that out to my husband during the movie, but I was a good girl and kept quiet.)
July 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm
So - anyone have any thoughts about the rating. This, to me, was definately an R movie. It was freaky, it was scary for me, and I'm in my 20's, and I could never imagine a young person, 13, seeing this without getting nightmares. Other than it was a major motion picture and they control the world, why would this be PG-13?
July 20, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Well, there wasn't really much sex/nudity or profanity. There was a good amount of violence, but not a whole lot of blood. I think they were being careful to try to keep it in PG-13 territory.
July 21, 2008 at 1:42 am
Well.
Review was good. So off to the theaters I GO!
And .. real quick... I'm a big fan of jack Nick's protrayal of the joker.
From this review And comments it sounds like Heath does a good job.
Does anyone know of a poll that asks the question: Who is the best joker?
July 21, 2008 at 2:38 am
My five year old nephew just came over & said "OH MY GOSH!!! Aunt Jenn, you HAVE to see Batman!!! It was sooo cool!!!" So I guess it can't be too much, if it didn't bother him. And I guess I'm going to see Batman this week!!! ;)
July 21, 2008 at 4:25 am
My wife and I have been talking about who could maybe pull of the roll of the Joker in the next one. The only name that came to mind as far as acting ability and a disposition to pull it off even close to Ledger is Johnny Depp...who's disposition is much more akin to the darker rolls than those associated with Ledger.
Best comic/graphic novel superhero movie of all time, and along with Wall-E, the best movie I've seen this year. Can't wait to see it in IMAX.
July 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Wonderful movie.
I think my favorite moment was Batman nose-diving off of a skyscraper in Hong Kong. He spreads his cape and glides gracefully through the air for what felt like a minute before crashing through a high-rise window. If I can remember correctly, it was one continuous take with no musical score in the background, just Batman's cape fluttering in the wind. It was an awesome shot, made all the better by the huge IMAX screen.
July 21, 2008 at 5:28 pm
[Spoilers]
I agree on this movie being borderline R-rating. The only reason I think it wasn't is because it was implied violence in some areas and dealt with some situations that involve extreme decisions (i.e. putting a grenade/bomb in a person's mouth/hand, the "pencil trick", making a decision to blow up the other boat, etc.)
When I left the movie, I was exhausted. The desperation of the movie is tiring! I totally agree with Eric's review, it's a nightmare, not a roller coaster.
What I don't agree with is Maggie as Rachel. First of all, yuck; she is NOT leading lady beautiful. I know it's superficial, but it WOULD have been alright if we didn't already have Katie Holmes as our "type". Second of all, she acts out Rachel differently; I'm not saying that is wrong, but it creates a lot of inconsistencies. For example, the Rachel in "Batman Begins," says things like, "Look around you, look outside your own pain, this city is rotting." And she herself tries her best to clean up the mess that Gotham has become. That's why Batman/Wayne was attracted to her so much, they both believed Gotham was worth saving, they just did it in different ways. In "Dark Knight", she treats it more like an obligation and a job, and we don't see her trying to "save the city". Instead, we see her toying with two men's hearts, until she FINALLY writes Bruce that letter.
Maggie was a good actress, I'll give her that. She is talented, but the interpretation was different.
And the Joker was AMAZING. But we've had enough people saying why. Suffice it to say that I am a Psychology major, and there was nothing more thrilling than to peel the layers of the movie off, one by one. The Joker isn't a man; he is a symbol, like Batman is trying to be, and man, Ledger steals the show.
[End spoilers]
IT'S A GREAT MOVIE!
July 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Just saw it; absolutely BRILLIANT film. I would highly recommend for anyone (ages 13+) to go see it.
I think what made the Joker such a great villain was his knack for corrupting all those he comes in contact with. I was a bit worried at first about the Joker seeming a bit one-dimensional; the "he's bad just because he's a bad guy"-mentality. But the fact that he so fully encompasses sheer anarchy, yet also seeks to corrupt and destroy anyone and anything he touches, just makes it that much more nightmare-inducing. He's not a villain, he's an evil natural force that threatens everything good in the world.
Great, great movie. I never see a movie more than once in theaters, this is the first movie for which I wouldn't mind breaking that record.
July 22, 2008 at 12:55 am
Holy Toledo. Nightmares aren't in it. Definitely a fantastic movie.
July 22, 2008 at 2:36 am
Great review. Although after seeing the film and thinking about it, I find Aaron Ekhardt's performance a bit surfacy and well, weak...no one else is really saying this.
Granted he is acting opposite performances by Bale, Ledger and Oldman that are nothing short of brilliant (Ledger in particular, who doesn't seem to appear in the film...it's all this monstrous, yet engrossing clown). But rather than allow that to propel his performance, the way Maggie Gyllenhal did, he seems to simply bring a lack of creative energy that refuses to be budged.
I'm dissapointed that the only American actor out of the leading men is considerably the weakest performance in an otherwise flawless film.
July 22, 2008 at 5:45 am
@45
regarding your mention of Aaron Ekhardt here's what I thought. As the white knight I thought he was spectacular, but he just doesn't have it in him to play the bad guy. It was once he became two face that i agree his performance was lacking,
What do you guys think?
July 22, 2008 at 8:00 am
First of all, [SPOILER]
I think Eckhart had a lot of pressure here. Ledger's performance was out of this world, and Eckhart knew he'd be playing another notorious Batman villain in the same villain. I'm personally glad he didn't go overboard and try to outdo Ledger, instead playing it straight. I heard him say in an interview that Two Face isn't so much a bad guy as he is a good guy doing bad things. It's better to think of it like that. When Dent becomes Two Face, he's still the same character.
As for the makeup and effects used to bring Two Face to life? HOLY CRAP. Now THAT is the stuff of nightmares, folks.
[SPOILER END]
Anyway, I absolutely adored the movie. I can't remember the last time I left a movie so satisfyingly exhausted. This one pulls you in and doesn't let go until the very end. Brilliant.
July 22, 2008 at 8:06 am
Uh, that should say "in the same film." I need to proofread these before I submit them.
July 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend... it's no wonder there's talk of another one coming out ASAP
July 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Ugh, didn't like this film at all, and I'm a fan of Frank Miller's re-envisioning of Batman. This ain't it. This is Philosophy 107: Intro to Ethics merged with Saw III. Add a few idiotic plot devices and you've got a comic book movie for smart people!
July 23, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The reason this film got an A- instead of a straight A or even an A+ was captured brilliantly by my wife as we came out of the theater. I asked her how she liked it.
"This was not a 'feel-good' movie," she said. Even though we both liked it overall and were impressed by everything in it, that one caveat was enough to knock it down a peg or two. So Eric is right on with his evaluation. It's like watching "The Sum of All Fears"; you come out of the theater wondering if someone really could plant a nuclear bomb in our back yard somewhere, and what would be the consequences of it, and how would we feel about it.... The Dark Knight makes you feel a bit lost at the end, with Batman scurrying off to save the day by taking on the mantle of being evil, and with Commissioner Gordon taking a sledge hammer to the Bat-signal. The breaking of that glass was iconic and feels irreparable.
Can they do a sequel after an ending like this? Michael Caine doesn't think so....
July 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I like how all these people who aren't me are explaining, in certain terms, why I gave it an A- instead of an A or A+. See, everyone? If you want to know more about my line of thinking, just ask those people.
I didn't give it an A+ because this isn't elementary school. A+ isn't a real grade. The scale goes from A to F.
The A- might be attributable to the Rachel character being underwritten (as mentioned in passing in the review), though I did like the direction(s) her character wound up going. (ZING!)
For further illumination, visit these blog entries, here and here. And remember, it's just a [movie], you should really just relax.
July 24, 2008 at 12:05 am
So I finally got to see this movie today. Loved it of course, but I'm a long time Batman fan (hint: my daughter Harley is not named after a motorcycle). A- seems like a pretty fair grade to me. While I think it's arguably the best comic book superhero movie to date, that pesky Rachel Dawes has always been the weak spot of the movies, especially in a franchise that had so many colorful female leads to choose from. Besides, it did feel like they just tried to cram too much stuff into it. I could have done with one less showdown, one less face-off and set-up for the next movie. Still a great movie, just a bit overstuffed.
Here's something for all you Batman/RPG nerds from earlier. Cheers!
http://img517.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lawfulgood2ao5.jpg
July 25, 2008 at 7:36 am
"WOW" The only way I can describe this Batman as I left the multi-plex. It is in fact a movie for everyone of all ages (except maybe very young children). I luved the character driven story and all the actors were really good. What can I say about Heath Ledger? "GREAT!" He was just memorizing on the screen! His acting talents really shined. "PURE ESCAPISM!" Yea, it's that good. There is no "Down Time" throughout the whole film. It's a non-stop popcorn muching adventure into a world of "Good Verses Evil." Clocking in at 2 hours 40 minutes, you'll never know it. If you don't like to go to the movies, go see this flick. It's almost a guarantee you'll like it. Look for the Jokers "Pencil Trick." You'll remember that. Forget waiting for the DVD. See The Dark Knight on the "Big Screen" the way it was meant to be seen. I almost got a sense the director was thinking..."HEY! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT?" Having difficulties with family issues? Have bills overdue? Have medical problems? Worried about the economy? You''ll forget those issues as your viewing this really entertaining film. Watch later for the Academy Awards presented in March 2009. The Dark Knight will clean up for the best movie of 2008. I won a newspaper contest in Florida in predicting the Russell Crowe epic "Gladiator" would win numerous Academy Award catagories. It did (I got $500). Will The Dark Knight win for best picture. Yea, it will. Don't miss it.
July 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Eric,
I didn't mean to sound like I was giving YOUR reason for the movie getting an A-...I was only saying that we AGREE with your assessment, whether for the same reasons or not. I would never presume to speak for you.....
Dale
July 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I have just finished watching the most eagerly anticipated releases of 2008, and i have to say that it is a remarkable piece of filmaking, although it is certainly not without its problems.
Actingwise, there is not a single duff performance in this film, which is down to the wonderful ensemble casting. Of course, everyone is going to be talking about the late Heath Ledger, and true to the buzz i feel that this final performance he puts in is truly his magnum opus. he doesnt quite dominate every scene that he is in, but the energy and realism he pumps into the character produces a villain that will not be forgotten very quickly. Compelling yes, but Oscarworthy?....yes it was good, but be serious people, we've still got another four or five months untill Oscar time, so we could see even better.
Besides Ledger, Maggie Gylenhall, Micheal Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman all wing in solid performances, whilst Christain Bale, although slightly irritating in terms of his gravel chewing under the cowl, is not lost amongst the cast. However, with all the attention focused on Ledger, another equally fine effort is almost totally forgotten. Aaron Eckhart is quietly profound as Harvey Dent, but really comes to life as Harvey "Two-Face". Probably on my own here, but i felt that at times Eckhart's Two Face was more ruthless and disturbing than Ledger's Joker.
Storywise, there were initially so many different strands to it that it was sometimes working what was going on proved infathomable. however, as time progressed the way that these strands weaved themselves together into the delighfully ambiguous conclusion was outstanding and mentally draining. and just to add another jolt, This ambiguity allowed the plot elements to move away from eachother once again, setting us up nicely for the inevitable second sequel.
The effects and set pieces were largely well crafted, with the second showdown between Batman and the Joker in particular a riveting sequence. however, as a similar gripe with the plot, it seemed that there was so much going on at times that it was impossible to absorb the barrage of explosions and gunfire.
All in all, whilst i found the film to be a very strong example of modern cinema, i believe that it was certainly a victim of the build up that people gave it, and wether this is down to the tragic circumstances surrounding Heath Ledger or the blind zealotry of the fanboys (and i might add their despicable comments on certain film message boards) is down to individual opinion. it is puzzling really how a film can have so many elements that are almost spot on and yet not quite blend together to create this "perfect masterpiece" that has been proclaimed by many. To simplify, Think of it as trying to make the perfect sandwich with the perfect ingredients. whilst all of the components sound delicious (depending on what you like), the final product may not be as brilliant as you'd like it to be, but still makes for a damn fine sandwich!!
also, in terms of a cinematic experience, It is an easy film to APPRECIATE, but it is a very difficult one to ENJOY, and please parents do not be fooled by the 12A/PG-13 rating. it is in flashes extremely violent, disturbing, and may have the undesired effect on younger children (i counted 3 parents leading out crying children when Two-Face ever appeared on Screen).
Overall rating: 8.8/10 (i know. very precise ;-) )
July 25, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I just barely got out of seeing TDK and I have to say, I felt a little let down. I am a big fan of Batman Begins (I've watched it at least 20 times, if not more) and I was so hyped up to see TDK. I couldn't wait until we finally got my brother-in-law to come watch the baby while my husband and I saw it today.
I definitely appreciated the imagery and the intelligence of the film, as well as Ledger's fantastic performance, but for whatever reason I did not feel drawn into the film. It felt too rushed to me. I was busy understanding and falling into one part of the film and something else would happen and interrupt me, so I didn't feel like I was part of what was going on. I felt detached from it, even though I was intrigued by what was happening. I was drawn in for the most part when the Joker was on screen, but otherwise I didn't feel connected to what was going on. The one part that I was really drawn into was the extended chase scene with the armored trucks under the street, but other than that it was really touch and go for me. This made me sad, because I really wanted to get into this movie and come out of the movie theatre going "WOW! I cannot wait to buy that movie and watch it over and over and over again!".
I don't feel that way though. I'd rather just watch Batman Begins some more.
Oh well, it was still a pretty good movie and I did enjoy it to some extent, especially Heath Ledger's performance. Maybe I will just need to see it again when it comes out on video and I'll change my mind. :/
July 25, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I have read several reviews and watched the movie twice.
This review is truely and pusposefully accurate.
Very rare ... so Bravo!
Impressing work.
Nickz
July 26, 2008 at 3:26 am
This film is technically mesmerizing, precisely acted, intelligently written, and flat out exhausting. I've seen it twice in the theatre already, and plan to see it a third time tomorrow. The only other film I've seen 3 times in the theatre is No Country For Old Men. TDK has the same kind of nailbiting tension throughout as No Country, except it's a crime thriller dressed up as a superhero movie.
Heath Ledger's performance, as everyone has said before, is like a black hole in its brilliance. I have to mention that the actor himself shines through the villain on occasion, and I think he does borrow from Jack Nicholson a tiny bit when it comes to how he voices the character. Overall, his performance surpasses that of Nicholson's in creativity and dedication. It's a good thing when an actor can make you squeamish as if he were sitting right next to you acting the way he does on screen.
Rachel was underwritten and flat at times; however, Gyllenhaal is a much better actress than Holmes. I don't care that she's not a beauty queen and looks like a puppy in certain lighting. :(
Dent/Two Face was well done, and despite some argument, Eckhart was perfectly cast. His appearance and demeanor fit the role well; don't they contribute to how it's all the more jarring when he has his outbursts of evil? Cheers to the makeup crew, that is gross ya'll. As it should be.
The opening bank robbery scene is definitely in my top 5 of favorite movie scenes ever. Awesome.
It isn't a perfect movie though. About 30 minutes before the end, it drags a little, although the drag upon second viewing was less evident and made more sense as part of the whole. The gadgetry was ...unbelievable sometimes, even if I'm required to suspend my disbelief. The music made perfect sense, except for certain parts where, though I can see why it was used to build a certain mood, it seemed to drown out the dialogue. The dialogue itself was intelligent, but it seemed like every character, especially Alfred, always had a motivational speech up his sleeve for every situation. It came off as cheesy sometimes, but I can see why it was necessary. And lastly, considering it's a movie about Batman (simply put), he wasn't in the movie much. At least it didn't seem that way. I'm not sure how to explain it other than Bale needs to lose the gravelly voice when he's intimidating the enemy. I think it actually got raspier since the last movie and I find it distracting; I'm not laying the blame entirely on the voice, but it's a minor contributor to Batman seeming flat in a movie that's about him and his role in Gotham.
Eric's review sums it up very well, though, and the A minus makes total sense. It's not perfect, but brilliant things shouldn't be. They should bother you in some way, right?
July 26, 2008 at 4:26 am
For all the complaints about Bale's "Batman voice", I could've sworn I'd seen mention somewhere of his voice being digitally altered.
But now I can't find it, so I guess I'm a fraud. :(
July 26, 2008 at 7:22 am
I felt a little disappointed, but I now realize why: this wasn't really about Batman. It was more about Harvey Dent and Joker, with Batman as a strong supporting character. It's definitely a great movie; amazingly deeep, great acting, good action. I guess I just wanted more Batman in a Batman movie. Nothing bad to say about it really, just wanted more Batman.
July 27, 2008 at 12:25 am
I don't know what John Doe was smoking when he said that The Dark Knight wasn't enough about BATMAN. This movie was awesome. It had great action and Heath Ledger's acting was awesome. The only problem with this movie was it was too depressing. I give this movie 4.5 stars
July 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I agree with you John Doe. I think that's part of why I was disappointed as well. There didn't seem to be a clear main character.
Dylan, despite the fact that you can spell just fine, you're kind of dumb. People are allowed to have their opinions. You can't just disagree with someone and say they were "on something" when they watched the movie without giving supporting evidence. Well, I guess technically you can, but it's not a very convincing way to make an argument.
I don't know what you were "smoking" when you thought the movie was too depressing. I honestly didn't think it was all that dark myself. I've seen movies that are a lot more depressing & scary. I think it was about as dark as Batman Begins was. I would have to say that a lot of the scenes where the hallucinogen was being used on people were pretty disturbing in BB.
July 28, 2008 at 2:02 am
Pick up Batman the Movie with Adam West. Where is Robin in TDK??? That dude Ledger should have taken a lesson from Cesar Romero! Blows TDK away with its far superior cinematography, acting, and story line. Oh, and the batmobile is so quick if looks like it's in fast forward! You will not be sorry! Best 6 bucks I ever spent.
July 28, 2008 at 6:19 pm
"Think of it as trying to make the perfect sandwich with the perfect ingredients. whilst all of the components sound delicious (depending on what you like), the final product may not be as brilliant as you'd like it to be, but still makes for a damn fine sandwich!!"
#56, I could not have summed it up better myself. I liked the movie. I found it beautifully filmed, really well-acted, and a great story. But there was something missing. Like #57 says, it just doesn't draw you in and make you feel invested.
I do enjoy Cillian Murphy, but I felt that was a 20 minute scene that had nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and could have been left out of this too-long thing.
Aaron Eckhart was brilliant. Heath Ledger was fantastic, but I'm not sure about Oscar-worthy... We're going to see it again this weekend in Imax. (my roommate didn't get to go yet) Maybe I'll connect more on a second viewing. It did make me sad when he said he had the feeling they'd be doing this a long time. I imagine they would have, and I can only imagine it would have gotten better from here.
July 28, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Oh and Karen... I died on your comment! I have texted everyone I know who's seen the movie... Hysterical!
July 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm
A-?!? Why the (-)?
July 31, 2008 at 1:47 am
i think i had paid so much attention to heath ledgers performance as the joker that i may have missed some vital parts of the movie..:S it was fantastic, but i think i better see it again!
It was disappointing Katie Holmes did not take up the role of Rachel Dawes, like in previous movie 'batman begins'. Its not likely we see her in something good these days, which is a shame because she has great potential.
August 1, 2008 at 5:58 am
"BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR." What movie this year could possibly top
The Dark Knight. Anyone remember the movie made in the late 90's called "TITANTIC?" That movie received numerous academy awards and everyone went to see it because it had all of the elements of entertainment. The Dark Knight has the same. Every once in a while, a movie like this comes along that is so good that many people go see it at the movie theater. Notice I say movie theater.
Yea, it will be popular on DVD but a first view is required on a big movie screen the way it was made to be seen and experienced. If your someone who doesn't go to the movies, make a exception just this one time and see The Dark Knight on that "BIG SCREEN."
August 2, 2008 at 3:54 am
Comparing The Dark Knight to the cinematic abortion known as Titanic?!
You and I cannot be friends. Even if you meant it as a compliment.
August 2, 2008 at 5:42 am
#70. Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that hence why it's a opinion and any feedback is welcomed.
August 4, 2008 at 6:04 am
I was just kidding around with you, man. Glad you liked the movie even if our tastes in other movies differ. :)
August 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Warning - Spoilers
While I thought the movie was done really well, some things bothered me. Things always went perfectly for the Joker. He blows up the police station and all the cops around him are killed or incapacitated, but he's not even knocked down. He has every contingency planned for and his plans always go off without a hitch.
And then Batman's refusal to kill the Joker got annoying. He'd rather crash his bike than get him. He could have at least knocked him down or maimed him like he did to the mob boss. That would have made it hard for the Joker to accomplish as much. At the end, he could have let the Joker fall. It's like in the first movie, he wasn't going to kill the guy, but he didn't have to save him. I guess it wasn't satisfying that the Joker never got his come-uppance. Maybe they were planning on having the Joker in future movies, but they can't now because any substitute for Ledger wouldn't sit well with fans.
Why did Batman have to take the fall for Dent? I don't think the city would have lost inspiration knowing that their DA, who had half his face blown off, went off the deep end and killed a couple of crooked cops and mob members.
Also, why the moral lecture on listening in on phone conversations that's on obvious reference to the anti-terrorism methods. And the bike going up the wall and turning around looked goofy.
Still, I thought it was a very good movie. I'm liking Batman Begins better, but maybe I'll change my mind when I eventually see Dark Knight again.
August 6, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I'm sorry but I hate Christian Bale's batman voice! It is so annoying! I don't care if they altered it. It bugged me durring the whole movie. The movie was over hyped because of Heath Ledger's death. I don't think it was the best movie ever but still pretty good. Random fact of the day, they didn't change Ledger's voice or make him look any more beefy for the movie in memory of him. I found this abnormaly cool.
August 18, 2008 at 4:54 am
The movie was not based on the comic books or other films already out. This movie was suppose to show a darker side to the series. Just like Jack Nickelson's performance as the Joker back in the 1960's batman movie. Now a new generation of a joker and batman have come out for the 21 century- with a more twisted theme. This is our generation of Joker and Batman (even thou christian Bale sounded like a 14 year old with a retainer shoved down his throat)
It was not meant to be the same old comic format as the other movies. It was more forward to the sense of hatred and sacrifice that the characters had to deal with. With that I say that this movie was meant to break the record past "Titanic". Loved Titanic but this movie got the new generation's attention and we are loving it!
It may be best to take a more in-depth look at the things you proclaim here please.
August 18, 2008 at 6:42 am
Anon: "Just like Jack Nickelson's performance as the Joker back in the 1960's batman movie"
Wow, that was sooo close. Only 2 decades off.
August 27, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Near the bottom of this article, there's a paragraph that perfectly describes all the things that kept bugging me about the movie. I still liked the movie, but thought it had some flaws that kept it from being what everyone else thinks is the greatest movie ever.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080826
January 13, 2009 at 12:24 am
Very stupid, very overrated movie!
January 15, 2009 at 2:49 am
Cinncinnatus,
You might be surprised to learn that Wall-e scored higher among critics than The Dark Knight. Even in this list of dozens of critics' top ten movies, few even included The Dark Knight:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml