If The Dark Knight is to win any awards it’s that, it is the most internet hyped films of the year. Much like the villain Two Face, the film itself has its good and bad sides.
The Good:
Heath Ledger (The Joker) and Aaron Eckhart (Two Face) are great villains. Heath’s performance isn’t Oscar worthy. In fact the Two Face character itself is much more rounded than Joker. You feel for Eckhart and understand why he goes to the “dark side.” Where as with The Joker, he’s just evil because he can be evil. Yippee.
The vehicle based action scenes, or any action scenes without the Batman suit are great. Batman himself is still stiff because of his suit. It isn’t as bad as Batman Begins, but any time you can’t see the action that’s occurring, that’s movie magic. It’s a way for filmmakers to bring upon an illusion that something really cool is going on.
One “important” character dies in this film. I won’t spoil who, but damn it’s so satisfying to see that person die. I think that’s a positive thing because that person really brought down the film. He/She looked ugly and I don’t think it was a the makeup.
The Bad:
That being said the better parts of the film are when the villains are on screen. But wait, isn’t this film called The Dark Knight? Isn’t that Batman? Oh right Batman is a one sided character. He’s two sided if you count Bruce Wayne. Bruce isn’t a charming “wealthy young man about town.” Whereas Tony Stark has his good looks and fun jokes, Bruce is morbid. He’s just one of the many rich dudes that everyone hates in the real world. Why he is even Batman is never really explored in this film. He’s Batman because he can be Batman. Is that really a good explanation? Sounds similar to why The Joker is evil explanation. Yawn.
Batman in this film is pretty evil. Killing dogs, enemies, and attacking SWAT! Oh right, I forgot Batman works alone…
At the end of the day, this films screams out I have no heart. There is no core to this film that makes it really worthwhile for movie goers. There isn’t anything that sucks people into the world and spits them out. Gotham is a dull and dreary place. Why any film goer would want to escape into this world beats the hell out of me! While Tim Burton’s Gotham was dark, it had a character to it. Christoper Nolan’s Gotham doesn’t.
Where’s the story? Much like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight doesn’t have a appealing story. It’s an adventure without the mystery, intrigue, and fun that all super hero films need. When a film has to explain what’s going on multiple times throughout the film, that’s not a good thing.
Conclusion:
This film ain’t for kids. Fanboys have already eaten it up. If this film was cut down to maybe 2 hours, it might have been better. I won’t be watching this film again, but thanks for the memories.
Let me know your thoughts! Leave a comment below.
[...] most people in America, I saw The Dark Knight. You can read my review here. I wasn’t all that happy with the film. It had its good moments and bad [...]
Also, why Bruce is Batman was explored in the last film (if you paid any attention to it) and is seen in this one. He’s Batman because being an outsider, a vigilante, allows him to make decisions others cannot, such breaking the law. And he really doesn’t want to be Batman forever. He wanted Harvey to take over.
And the “mystery” your looking for is simply another word for old-time who-done-it scenario. The Dark Knight is not only a super-hero movie, but a crime epic. What makes it compelling is the characters and their moral conflicts. This film has more heart than Tim Burton’s work ever had. What you’re looking for is not heart, but a more cheesy movie. I give The Dark Knight 4 stars.
I just saw Batman Begins a week before I went to see the Dark Knight. That probably helped me get into it, I am sure, but to keep me there was something else entirely. The minute the Dark Knight began, I forgot I was at the movie, forgot who all those actors were in real life, and was completely taken away. If that isn’t worth an Oscar, then OK.
As for your comment on the “death” in the film, I agree with you.
The person who died looked hideous and the performance was sticky and flat- you were right on there.
But I wholeheartedly disagree with you about Ledger. He was under-rated as a actor before his death but this “Joker” performance IS the stuff that Oscars are made of.
Go, Heath, GO!!!!
The best reviews don’t have heart. I didn’t insert my Batman fanboyism into this review because it invalidates my opinion.
Myself, I liked the way Gotham City was portrayed in this movie. It seemed like a real city not some futuristic/retro acid inspired Tim Burton monstrosity or the neon circuses of Batman Forever or Batman & Robin.
I think all the explanation needed for the Joker came from Alfred “Some men just like to watch the world burn.” That being said, since the Joker wasn’t killed off I suspect that there would have been future developments with the character.
Why is Batman Batman? was covered pretty well in Batman Begins and shouldn’t have to be rehashed every installment unless it serves a point as in Batman Forever.
I agree with the killing, it needed to be done though I think it might have added to the plot if it had happened during the earlier opportunity.
I agree for the most part with this review, I didn’t regret watching it but I won’t bother with it again. While Ledger did a good performance I didn’t like how he looked like a bum who got paint thrown in his face. So this Joker didn’t get his skin and hair colour changed chemically like in the comics, first movie or animated series. Apparently Nolan didn’t think it was realistic enough. Well, is it really necessary to have things be a hundred percent realistic in a superhero movie? I always felt it was a important aspect of the character, but Nolan obviously didn’t. Another problem is that when Dent finally becomes Two-face he is defeated to quickly, they could have just let him get disfigured here but wait until a possible next film to let him return as Two-face as the main villain instead of giving him a twenty minutes or so appearance here. If they had done that they would also been able to cut down the film’s running time cause I felt it was to long. I also felt it was lacking the fell and atmosphere that Burton’s film had thanks to wonderful sets and music score. This Gotham looked like any other big city and the music was ok, but nowhere as impressive and memorable as Danny Elfman’s score.
I actually stumbled onto this website looking for a two-face picture from the new movie, can’t remember why, but your review was one of the top hits for “Two-Face.” Congrats on that.
That said, I do respect people’s opinion and I won’t aim to try to change yours, but I do disagree with you on two points in particular.
First, Gotham is meant to be a dreary place. I understand you don’t want to bring your Batman fanboyism in to bias the review, but I would point out that you are trying to compare Gotham in Nolan’s version to Burton’s. Doesn’t that bias it a bit? =P
Seriously, I love Burton’s take, but what Gotham truly represents is something else. Gotham is supposed to be dark and dreary, how else could Batman fit in? (Just imagine Batman in the world of My Little Pony… Gee, there’s a cross-over I’d pay for.
) It’s why I loved the contrast between Batman as the Dark Knight and Dent as the White Knight. Who did the people turn to? The one they thought brought justice, peace, and light to their world. I think that Gotham had to be without the charm and character Burton’s had in order to pull that story off.
Second, I contend that this is a great movie. I’ll grant that for the easy going movie audience who just wants to sit through an entertaining movie… no, it’s not that entertaining. What I think the Dark Knight offers is a deeper look in philosophy and moral choices that are often overlooked. I’m a bit of a philosophy nut, and I squealed like a child in a candy-store when I saw the Prisoner’s Dilemma being used in a real-world context.
But perhaps the better lesson was when I was reading a forum I frequent. A user posted that they believed there was no choice in regards to the joker. S/He believed that a person like the joker ought to be hunted and killed mercilessly, without due process of law. The reason? Specific deterrence, the Joker was out killing, so to prevent more death, you kill the Joker. But the beauty of this post is that killing the Joker without hesitation is what the Joker wanted. A system of anarchy, a place where people resort into a Hobbesian state of nature. In other words, people left the movie supporting the Joker’s ideals.
I thought the movie was entertaining and well worth the admission fee. I thought this made it a good movie. But what makes it a great movie is the fact that it calls into question the foundations and assumptions of society in regards to what is just and what’s not. A movie that leaves you with that question deserves slightly more than being called a ‘fun-filled’ action flick.
With that, I’ll get off my soap-box. Take what I said with a grain of salt, heck if you disagree with everything I said, just ignore me and be on your way. =P
i could care less about the review, but i have a question:
is that image of Harvey Dent with the Joker Face copywrited? because I want to use it for a picture in my band’s EP cover
get back to me at http://www.myspace.com/dundermifflinowns
thanks.
How f***ing wrong were you? Most of the people who saw it loved it, its killed it at the box office and dvd, and to this date the film remains untouchable. Your opinion is based on who you are, then you my friend, are a dick.