The Dark Knight Review

→ in
Tools    





I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
No. No. I just meant that people who thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread, might not want to read it, as it might be controversial and spark some arguments, which are unneeded in this forum.
Arguments, otherwise known as discussion should be welcome. It would be boring if everyone agreed or disagreed without explanation.
Badger hit the nail on the head.

No. Debates are welcome. Arguments are not.
Debates are simply civilized arguments.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



Is it getting semantical in here or is it just me?

I think Spud's right. We're probably just using the words differently, but arguments are fine, and I don't think they're really different from "debates." And like it or not, you're going to get some arguments if you post opinions like this. That's okay; if you're respectful and your opinions are well thought-out, everything'll go fine. You might not persuade people, but they'll respect you.

That said, you're kind of courting arguments when you make weird references to not respecting Ledger for his role in Brokeback Mountain, or saying people "beat off" to the film. That's not useful or insightful.

Anyway, this really should have gone in one of the existing The Dark Knight review threads (please use the search engine next time), but since it's turned into something else, I'll let it stay as-is.



A system of cells interlinked
You state you were "just being realistic", but that makes little sense. How about posting some accurate info, to start?

What is this rubbish about people not taking to Batman Begins? RT currently has a 84% FRESH rating for the flick. In case you aren't familiar with RT, it's a data mining site that collects and tallies a large amount of newspaper reviews for any given film. So, clearly most critics liked it. You will also find a generally positive consensus on this site in regards to the film, as well. Personally, I thought it was damn good, with just a minor quibble about the poorly edited fight scenes.

Your comments on the gore content and also on the length of the film are irrelevant, as neither has any bearing on the quality of the film, at all. Long just does not equate to bad - it just doesn't. The gore statement is directly out to lunch.

As for the acting, I think it's silly to gloss over the performances of people like Morgan Freeman, while spending time and space discussing how hot Maggie Gyllenhall is or isn't. Also, Harvey Dent isn't an actor, he's a character in the film, so he didn't do any acting. The guy's name is Aaron Eckhart, and I think he did a bang up job with the character, as do many, many oither people.

As for calling out people who "painted their walls with Batman", I am unsure who those people are, but I don't think they read this site.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Word.

Seds really knows how to slap someone around with his keyboard, does he not?
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
People were not too keen about the first movie, although people suddenly got quite excited when Heath Ledger was announced to play the part of the Joker. The movie was an instant success and a sequel was in planning.
Uhhhhhhh what? People loved Batman Begins when it came out in theaters. Heath wasn't anounced till about July 2006 to play The Joker. Not before Batman Begins came out, it was after.


However, Heath Ledger passed away, due to a drug overdose. And now the creators are unsure what they are going to do. Heath Ledger really got into character for this movie, and many say that is the reason he died. He needed to be so crazy for his role that he adopted drug use to help him seem more crazy in his scenes.
Uhhh the creators knew to leave him in the movie? And why would they be confused "now"? And you're speculating.


I now leave you with this warning... this review will be highly controversial. I will tell it like it is, and wil NOT sugar coat it in any way. So if you think The Dark Knight was the greatest and it should get 5 stars, then don't read on...
I gotta agree with Meat here, youre writing to convince people to think that TDK's horrible, but you only want people who already think that to read?

SYNOPSIS...

Scarecrow, is still at large but a group of Batman wannabee's have taken to the street to try and capture him, but Batman quickly breaks the news that there can be only one Bat in the Bellfrey that is known as Gotham.
Batman's not opposed to help, he's had people help him out before (ROBIN!) It's that they were using lethal force, as in trying to kill Scarecrow and his henchmen and Batman doesn't want blood on his hands. P.S. The movie starts with The Joker robbing a bank.

Meanwhile, a new villain, who has surfaced after his escape from Archem Asylum. The Joker. And he is swiftly making his way through town, commiting murders, robbing banks, and being a natural pain in the ass.
Joker didn't escape from ArKam (notice the k) Asylum, he just shows up, to prove how good he is to the mobsters and get hired to kill the Bat.

Batman, assumes he is just another nut and can be easily taken down, but soon realize's that the Joker is no laughing matter at all... The Joker maintains a plan at all times, even though he says that he never has a plan, you can tell that everything was carefully mapped out.
Not true, Batman wants to take down the Joker, but is preoccupied with the Mob. He thinks that the Joker is one man, he can wait for a little bit, while Batman goes to Hong Kong (which you left out?)

Batman then realizes that both Two-Face and Joker need to be stopped, so he takes to the street in one final effort to save Gotham, but in the end he must become a Dark Knight.
This isn't a synopsis by the way, a synopsis tells the whole story. You left out a lot.

The storyline for this movie was good, but it definatley could've been better. I mean some things just don't add up. But for the most part, the story keeps on going and people get into it. I myself thouroughly enjoyed Batman Begins, and gotvery excited after watching trailers for TDK. But, to my disapointment, the story just wasn't well thought out, and at somepoints it had me yawning, just wanting to get to a good part.
You mean action?

The movie is three hours long, and it could've been cut down as there are some really unneccesary scenes. But like I said, it is not an awful plot.
Uhhh what were the "unnecessary" scenes?

. Heath Ledger did well, considering him being a gay cowboy up in Brokeback Mountain, didn't really give me much respect for him. Heath did win some respect in this movie, but some scenes are better than others.
Uhh how is playing a gay guy a hinderance for him playing the Joker?

The man who played Harvey Dent is not the greatest actor in the world which is why you only see Two-Face for short scene's in the movie.
His name is Aaron Eckhart, and he happens to be one of my favorite actors of all time (we all should know by now I love the man,) and did you only watch half the movie? He was in a lot. That was one of my favorite parts of the movie, I've always loved Two-Face from the comics, and was glad to see him get the screen time he deserved.

For some reason he just wasn't very believable, and I sort of lost interest in him after ten minutes. Although his makeup was awsome.
Okay, it's awEsome. Get a dictionary (there are lots of other misspelled words). Second, if you want to review something, which means you're basically trying to get people to think your way, don't go "oh for some reason I didn't like the guy."

I personally loved him, because he showed a man pushed to the limit by the Joker.

Christian Bale plays Batman, and he is good at it. Although, it bothers me beyond belief that he sounds like he smoked twenty packs of ciggarettes right before he put on his Batman suit. That's just really unnecessary. However, he does play a good Bruce Wayne, and Batman for the most part, so props to him.
It's to hide his voice, which is a great idea.

I don't understand why they never picked a prettier girl to play Rachel.
I don't know, maybe because she can act?! I mean I'm just throwing ideas out here.

Anyway, here is a list of some characters in the movie and their descriptions...

Bruce Wayne/ Batman- The caped crusader. By day he is a rich snob. But by night, he turns into Gotham's savior.

The Joker- A psychotic killer. Other than that not much is known about him. There is no background story. All we know is that his clothes are custom, he has no other aliase's, and there was nothing in his pockets except knive's and lint.

Harvey Dent/ Two-Face- Gothams newly elected official, who gets into trouble and turns into Two-Face, a killer who's victims lives hang on the balance of a coin.

Rachel- Batman's love and harvey's squeeze.

Comissioner Gordon- Police Officer who happens to be firends with Batman, and finds himself in quite a bit of trouble in this film.

In the end the character choices for this movie were very good, although the actors tha play them might not have been the best choice.
It's thaT, and thank god you listed out the characters, I mean I don't know what I'd do with out it!

As mentioned, the characters in the movie were great picks although the actors portraying them didn't quite live up to expectation. Bale, is a good Batman except for whenever he puts on his cape he develops a throat disease andspeaks unclearly. Now, obviously he does that to cover up his real voice, but come on, you can tell it is Wayne, even if he talks like that.
Actually, it really does help. The people talking to Batsy don't know it's him and all they can see is his lips and chins, and do you know how many people have chins like that?

Harvey Dent also is a pretty poor actor. I have only seen him in two other movies, and only one of them was okay. So, he doesn't really strike me as a great supporting actor.
Again, it's Aaron Eckhart, and have you seen Thank You for Smoking? I mean it's R, I don't know if you can see it yet, without your mom's permission, but just watch that and you'll see that not only can Eckhart hold his own as a supporter, but he can even lead a movie.

Rachel also wasn't as pretty as you might expect, and she on;ly has two speaking lines so you can't really judge here.
Again, did you miss all that first half of the movie? She's has a lot more than two lines. I don't think you actually saw the movie.

The only good actor was Ledger, as much a it pains me to admit it. But he did present the Joker in a way that was both new, and exciting. He has a great voice for his character, and he is constantly at his best, although sometimes it is a bit too much.
The Joker IS supposed to be over the top.

The movie uses little to no CGI or green screen effects at all. The directors decided to utilize Chicago as their filming spot, due to the fact that is very modern and almost Gothamesque. IT fits the description of Gotham and every way. And it was a smart choice.

The fact that no CGI and Green screens were used is a great point about the movie. If Batman is standing on a 200 foot ledge, looking over Gotham, well guess what. Bale really was doing just that. I mean, they really blew up a hospital too. (No there were no people in it. you guys are sick.) But that shows some real commitment here.

score that...10/10
Oh yeah and Eckhart's face is really blown up like that, thank you Christopher Nolan!



Well, here is the category which makes almost no sense to me at all.
HEY you got something right!

They censor TDK enough that it is a family friendly movie,
Oh yeah, I mean this is basically Care Bears three!

howver, the goal was to reimagine it and take it away from the comic book style of Batman, or the Superfriends. So it really doesn't add up. Especially with some of the scenes that are a bit more innapropriate. For example...
Have you read the comics? Hell they're darker than this.

The Joker kills a ton of people, but there is never blood. Howver, Harvey's have melted face is openly shown.
Batman never says ****, but the Joker Does make reference to testicles.
They never really show any gore, but the Joker describes a knife slitting his mouth open with great detail.
Because they had to make it PG-13 and coming from a guy who loves violence (YES PUNISHER WAR ZONE ROCKED MY SOCKS!!!!) it really doesn't matter. If you want violence, go play GTA or something.

See? Some things in the movie don't add up. You are better off just making it rated R and getting some really great action scenes in there,
Because that would cut the profits like down to 25% of what it actually made?

as long as you focus on the story and not just gruesome killing, but do show some blood and what not, just not excessive amounts.
Yeah for contradicting yourself?

people made it out to be better than it actually was, mainly because they love Heath Ledger.
Or they just really like Two Face, or Batman, or Aaron Eckhart or a lot of other things. Or maybe it really is that good.


6/10 the movie just wasn't what people made it out to be. I would recomend watching it, but don't pay 5 bucks to rent it, and don't pay 25 bucks for it on blu-ray. Just go to a used DVD store and buy it for 5 bucks like I did, or add it to Netflix.
Yeah for repeating yourself?

And by the way, it really is that awesome and I just rewatched it for this post and I still give it a
.
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



Welcome to the human race...
This is the best Dark Knight review ever written in the history of forever. If you do not think The Dark Knight was the best movie ever made, do not read it.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Thought it was kinda funny when I saw DarkAce gave me a +1 rep point for my post on the previous page, I guess he thought I was being sincere.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



DK was altogether a great film, I too felt energized upon seeing it. Now, it being a year later I begin to notice it's flaws. One thing I noticed was that it really lays on the metaphors, Harvey launching into grandiose speeches of righteousness, and the closing monologue by Gordon, all seemed to remind me "oh yeah this is a comic book movie;" which isn't bad but given the attempt to center the film in a "real world" it did take away from that. Also, I couldn't help but feel the climax involving Harvey seemed a little too sudden and out of convenience, but then again it was nearly two hours in so I can forgive that. Again, Rachael Dawes does nothing for me as a character, she's like Lois Lane without the mythos or charm. I know her death was suppose to be the catalyst for both Harvey and Bruce but I honestly felt nothing when it happened. Although Maggie Gyllenhall, I felt, was a much needed improvemnt from the girl on Dawson's Creek.
__________________


...uh the post is up there...



Thought it was kinda funny when I saw DarkAce gave me a +1 rep point for my post on the previous page, I guess he thought I was being sincere.
He gave me a -1 for mine... so I guess he doesn't like constructive criticism anymore than he liked The Dark Knight...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




I am burdened with glorious purpose
That said, you're kind of courting arguments when you make weird references to not respecting Ledger for his role in Brokeback Mountain, or saying people "beat off" to the film. That's not useful or insightful.

Anyway, this really should have gone in one of the existing The Dark Knight review threads (please use the search engine next time), but since it's turned into something else, I'll let it stay as-is.
Ah, Yoda, you have a way with words and said this so much more diplomatically than I ever could.

I missed this thread! And an entertaining one it is.

As to the review, well, the comments about Ledger were so annoying, I couldn't go any further. I honestly didn't know people thought Ledger took drugs to be the Joker. Wow.



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
Well they were saying that the role turned him crazy and he couldn't sleep so he had to take sleeping pills, and I personally don't believe that. Eh well, I'm still waiting for my responce.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Yea, I heard that he got rather anxious playing the role and couldn't sleep, but taking sleeping pills is a bit different than what DarkAce alluded to. But what was more disturbing was the idea that someone would look at Ledger "differently" because he played a gay man in Brokeback Mountain.

Although, I looked at him differently -- more like, wow, what an actor!

And yea, I wonder if you will get a response, Lennon, great post.



okay

Heath Ledger was Sick during a Movie

there are 2 actors i know that died after a movie was Made

1.Victor Price (Edward Sissorhands)
2.Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

R.I.P

Victor Price

and

R.I.P

Heath Ledger



I enjoyed The Dark Knight very much, especially since I like action films a great deal. The photography was wonderful, and some of the aerial scenes of Gotham kind of reminded me of the aerial shots of Gotham in the opening part of West Side Story. Heath Ledger was good as the Joker, and Christian Biale was good as the black-caped Batman, although I do think that there was a little too much exploding on the screen at times for my tastes. TDK was worth seeing, and I think that it should've won the Best Picture of the Year for the year 2008, but I guess that's my opinion.
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)



Welcome to the human race...
okay

Heath Ledger was Sick during a Movie

there are 2 actors i know that died after a movie was Made

1.Victor Price (Edward Sissorhands)
2.Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

R.I.P

Victor Price

and

R.I.P

Heath Ledger
I think you mean Vincent Price.



I watched the Dark Knight last night, for the 2nd time, and I must say, I made sure I payed close attention to Heath Ledgers performance. It has to be said, he really did pull it off. The way he delivered the little one liners at the precise moment, and his all round ability to draw you in.

I felt sorry for Maggie Gylanhaul, for she is a better actor than she was given. I'm sure these Directors, script writers are just little nerds who only see woman as objects who once through dirt in their face. C'mon guys, give chicks better parts in these comic Movies, it ain't high school no more!



I have to say that Ledger, Freeman, and Michael Caine were the only redeemable actors in the film. I would say the film is quite overrated (it is simple to pick performances and some other aspects apart), but it is still a darn good movie.
__________________
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning...smells like victory."