The Dark Knight review thread

[u2popmofo]

I honestly felt like I was expecting the world with this movie, and somehow I got the entire solar system. Good, good, good, good, good stuff. I can see myself seeing this one 3 or 4 times in the theater, we'll see what happens.

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally Posted by the tourist

You wanna see it that much, huh? Well so did I. And I wanna see it a second time even more.

That's exactly how I feel.

You get the feeling, though I'm not sure if it is because of Ledger's tragical passing, that you're watching something on a superior level when you watch The Joker on screen. Something on a supernatural level. I don't know, I can't explain it. Did anyone else feel this?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I teared up when his name flashed in the credits, and in the memorial credit. He is so alive in that character and then poof, he is gone-and you remember that he is. For me his performance blew away the others, and honestly I kept wishing for him to be on screen again. One review I read said that the movie would be fatally ponderous without him, and I have to agree with that. It's all action and great shots, but when he's not around it seems one dimensional and slow-and that is so true to say that he makes you root for the Joker.

I agree about Maggie too, I expected more from her. But the character is not well written/fleshed out and maybe she did the best with what she had. She looked beautiful.

I enjoyed it very much- but in the end it left me wanting a Joker movie sequel, starring Heath, and obviously that can never be.

[MrsSpringsteen]

This review said Eckhart's performance was disappointingly bland and honestly I thought it was too. Maybe it's just expectations that are too high, especially when you witness Heath's. I thought it made the about face unbelievable as well.

(CNN) -- According to a Russian proverb, God makes the priests. Jesters come from the devil.

You won't have any trouble believing that aphorism when you see Heath Ledger's mesmerizing performance as the Joker in "The Dark Knight," Christopher Nolan's hotly anticipated and often brilliantly executed follow-up to "Batman Begins."

His face caked in cracked white greasepaint, his smile a grotesque red lipstick scar, kohl rimming his eyes, the Joker is a cruel kind of clown, the kind that is only interested in the last laugh.

Slouched in his purple suit, Ledger gives him a lopsided shuffle, a permanently craning neck and an insinuating, deceptively neighborly voice. But there's something reptilian about the way his tongue flicks through his pursed lips like a pickpocket. He's hungry for trouble, a maniac for mayhem -- and in Gotham City, where crime is still running wild, he can make himself right at home.

Ledger dominates this movie as a living presence, a live wire, dangerous and unpredictable. It's an astonishing performance, as extravagant and free ("deranged" might be a better word) as his Ennis Del Mar in "Brokeback Mountain" was inhibited and tongue-tied.

And "The Dark Knight" takes him -- and its world -- very seriously.

Even more than Batman himself, the Joker would usually scream "camp" (and has in the TV series and other movies) but Nolan refuses to go there. His Gotham is cement and glass, a "real" city not so different from what we might find in any contemporary action thriller. (Chicago doubles for Batman's metropolis.)

Unlike Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher, who directed previous Batman films, Nolan favors location work over studio artifice, and he seems determined to keep the computer-generated imagery within the bounds of gravity. Even the fetishistic attention to Batman's toys -- his suit, his weaponry and transport -- emphasizes utility and design; this is not a superhero in the supernatural sense. (He may not be a hero, either, according to the serious-to-a-fault script by Nolan and his brother Jonathan.)

"Batman Begins," which came out in 2005, was about the politics of fear, the power of nightmares. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) overcame his own phobia to turn fear back on the fear mongers and restore hope to Gotham.

In "The Dark Knight" (Nolan must have been tempted to add "of the Soul" to the title), the Joker might be his shadow or his evil twin. In some sick way, they need each other.

"You complete me," the Joker lisps to Batman, mimicking (mocking?) "Jerry Maguire."

The word is nowhere stated, but this Joker is unmistakably a terrorist -- he blows up hospitals, rigs bombs to commuter ferries, burns his own ill-gotten gains. (He even manages to put Gotham's crime syndicates under his thumb.) That makes Batman a kind of one-man Department of Homeland Security. And if he has to ride roughshod over civil liberties to get the job done -- eavesdropping on the entire city's cell phone data, for example -- then so be it.

To their credit, neither Nolan nor Bruce Wayne is comfortable with this glorified vigilante figure. However, the only legitimate alternative turns out to be a civic crusader, District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart).

Dent, who carries around a double-headed coin, may seem honorable, but he was once known as "Two-Faced Harvey." With whom will he cast his lot? That's the movie's ultimate ideological battleground.

Unfortunately, if Dent gives the movie a classic character arc, Eckhart's disappointingly bland performance fails to nail the narcissism that must be the flip side to his zeal, making his ultimate about-face hard to accept.

That's the film's most obvious flaw. Whenever the Joker and Batman are in the vicinity, the movie hums with finely tuned dread and anticipation. But the longer it goes on (and yes, it does go on too long), Dent triangulates the equation, ultimately pulling it out of whack.

Still, for the most part, "The Dark Knight" is an exceptionally smart, brooding picture with some terrific performances. In a summer when action overwhelms intelligence (and even good sense), here's a movie that works on many levels. It even features the single most awesome truck stunt I've ever seen.

And though Ledger's tragic death in January can't help but cast a morbid pall over the proceedings -- and that's saying something, given some of the film's plot points -- when he's on the screen the movie lights up. It's a bravura turn. I'll be surprised if Ledger doesn't get a posthumous Oscar for it.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LemonMacPhisto

Again, it's great. Any fan of the character or previous film should check this out... or anyone who enjoys a great crime film. This, however, is ridiculous: IMDb Top 250

I really hope that number drops steadily in the coming weeks.

Since everyone here seems to be head over heels in love with this movie, I'm going to keep my thoughts to myself, but damn those numbers better drop.

[No spoken words]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Since everyone here seems to be head over heels in love with this movie, I'm going to keep my thoughts to myself, but damn those numbers better drop.

You should post how you feel and not worry about how everyone else feels. If you disliked it, or liked it a lot less than everyone else, why not say so, and say why? This is not FYM, you're not going to get attacked.

[phillyfan26]

Just saw it. Fucking unreal. Blew my expectations out of the water. I thought I knew the general plot of the movie because of the previews. Not even close.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted by No spoken words

You should post how you feel and not worry about how everyone else feels. If you disliked it, or liked it a lot less than everyone else, why not say so, and say why? This is not FYM, you're not going to get attacked.

Yeah, you have every right to be totally wrong.

[monkeyskin]

I never used to care that we Brits get films weeks, sometimes months, after their American release dates.

Then I joined a predominately American forum.

Fuck you all until next weekend.

[AtomicBono]

I think the movie needed Dent, and I thought Eckhart's performance was solid. Not quite up to the level of Bale and obviously Ledger, but still very, very good.

What I really like about this movie is none of the characters are completely likable, nor are any completely despicable. Even before he became Two-Face, there was something annoying to me about Dent, like he was too idealistic. It's simultaneously tragic but also almost satisfying to see his character fall into Two-Face. Meanwhile we see Bruce Wayne act like a cocky asshole you can both love and hate (sort of like Stark from Iron Man, except for me Stark was much more on the love end, plus that was his entire character as opposed to just a part) and we see Batman almost become a monster and not always the obvious hero. Then The Joker is clearly completely insane but as others have mentioned, how can you not absolutely love his performance, and furthermore see some truth in what he says?

[skjuls]

The film was amazing. I will have to watch it again!! Great movie!

[bono_212]

And you wonder why I don't want to post it NSW? Ok Fine:

I did like it. But Jesus people. It's a movie based on a comic book and you're talking Oscars. The movie would've been 9/10 if there had been more Joker, less Batman Death Growling, NO Two-Face, and the movie had ended 40 minutes before it did

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by bono_212

And you wonder why I don't want to post it NSW? Ok Fine:

I did like it. But Jesus people. It's a movie based on a comic book and you're talking Oscars. The movie would've been 9/10 if there had been more Joker, less Batman Death Growling, NO Two-Face, and the movie had ended 40 minutes before it did

I'm totally fine with your review. I just want to discuss it.

I'm wondering why you find it odd that we'd talk Oscars about this movie. Why does its origins make a difference when it comes to judging the quality of the film?

Your other criticisms are reasonable and something that is based on taste, that's just the one I was wondering about.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

I'm totally fine with your review. I just want to discuss it.

I'm wondering why you find it odd that we'd talk Oscars about this movie. Why does its origins make a difference when it comes to judging the quality of the film?

Your other criticisms are reasonable and something that is based on taste, that's just the one I was wondering about.

I just have a hard time ever viewing a character in an action film, in this case on based off of a comic book, as a possible nominee for an Oscar. Though yes, I would agree, if ever this was the time for one, I think Heath Deserved it.

I'm sorry I came off the way I did at first...it's been a long day, and I spoke rather hastily.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by No spoken words

This is not FYM, you're not going to get attacked.

You're wrong. And let me tell you why with a huge post that doesn't actually address reality or your position.


--

I think I'm going to try and see this tomorrow night. I've heard some interesting reviews on both sides, but from the sounds of it I'ma gonna like it.

[AtomicBono]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I just have a hard time ever viewing a character in an action film, in this case on based off of a comic book, as a possible nominee for an Oscar.

That's why I don't like the Oscars sometimes. Too much of a bias towards artsy stuff. Which, yes, in many cases it is deserving. but action movies are usually dismissed and only qualify for stuff like visuals and sound. Not every action movie is a vapid SFX extravaganza though. Some are really well made, with stellar acting, and some are even thought-provoking ... namely, this one. It truly is more than "just a comic book movie," though I think comic book movies deserve more credit anyway.

if it were up to me this and iron man would be up for best picture 'cause they're the two best movies I've seen this year That's just my taste. Not that I don't love other kinds of movies, I just think this has been an excellent year for comic book movies. my dad collects comic books, I think they're cool

[KhanadaRhodes]

i thought it was a great movie. i want to see it again; i feel i can't give a decent review until i've seen it again.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by AtomicBono

That's why I don't like the Oscars sometimes. Too much of a bias towards artsy stuff. Which, yes, in many cases it is deserving. but action movies are usually dismissed and only qualify for stuff like visuals and sound. Not every action movie is a vapid SFX extravaganza though. Some are really well made, with stellar acting, and some are even thought-provoking ... namely, this one. It truly is more than "just a comic book movie," though I think comic book movies deserve more credit anyway.

if it were up to me this and iron man would be up for best picture 'cause they're the two best movies I've seen this year That's just my taste. Not that I don't love other kinds of movies, I just think this has been an excellent year for comic book movies. my dad collects comic books, I think they're cool

That's fair enough. I also hate it when only artsy stuff gets nominated for awards too. I just usually look to drama and dramadies when it come to the awards I suppose. But honestly who can take the awards seriously anyways.

[anitram]

Loved it. LOVED IT.

I had a really hard time hearing/understanding the Batman voice, most of the time. That's the one thing that bugged me pretty consistently.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Saw it and loved it. I went in with high expectations and they were met. I also loved seeing Chicago as the backdrop.
I will provide a better review than this tomorrow. lol