Dark Knight

[The_lurkeR]

Saw the movie Saturday in an IMAX screening. I had tried not to buy too much into the hype or see much spoilers, but was still excited to see it.

Overall it's good but not great, maybe a 7 or 8 out of 10. There are a number of nagging flaws that keep it from being the "best... movie... ever!" as some have proclaimed it.

It starts off fantastic, the setup scenes, and the action of the 'sky-hook' trip are pitch-perfect. The middle chase scenes and confrontations are also well done (mostly...) [sblock] with a glaring exception of the fund raising party... so Joker breaks in looking for Harvey, drops Rachel out the window and Batman jumps out after to rescue her... then that's it, scene over? What happened back in the party? They left Joker alone with all those people still looking for Harvey. [/sblock]

It's only in the end that it began to feel drawn out and overwrought with explanatory dialogue. The Joker saying [sblock] "You complete me" to Batman [/sblock] explains their relationship well enough, we don't need him to spell it out at the end.

I believe we all understand the message Nolan was trying to tell in the final part with the two b***'s, but it took too much screen time and white noise in the film at that point. Which made cutting back to Batman's scenes kinda boring and anticlimatic compared to the earlier action. (The "phone-view" also helped muddy the action beyond Nolans already muddy style.)

Anyways I liked it, but it just wasn't perfect is all.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Um...

[sblock]They didn't claim Batman killed Harvey. They claimed Batman killed the people that Harvey actually killed. And they couldn't pin those deaths on the Joker because too many people knew where the Joker was during those times; he couldn't have committed those crimes.[/sblock]

[sblock]
Then why did the GPD chase Batman immediately when Harvey's dead body was discovered at the Factory by Commish Gordan? Up until that point it was unknown who killed the men Harvey murdered. Also, the GPD also knew why Batman was attacking the cops once they discovered that the hostages were dressed up like the badguys (which sadly was something stolen from another movie). Going beyond this movie, once the investigation on those murders Batman was blamed for starts (off screen) there unfortunately is a major problem with pinning those murder's on Batman:

Harvey Dent's fingerprints were all over the crime scenes since he did not wear gloves when he committed his crimes. This means that his fingerprints could be matched to fingerprints obtained at various crime scenes and to the gun found at the scene of his "murder/death." the bullets obtained at the crime scenes could also be matched to bullets fired from the gun to that gun (whose original ownership is unknown since it was handed to Dent by the Joker).

Sadly, the only think that is keeping Harvey's record clean is Gotham PD's corruption, which this movie's ending reinforced.

Also, since Gothem PD's corruption has been established by the ending, GPD could say "the Joker issued a string of Murder Challenges." Thus he could be arrested and convicted as an accessory to murder since there is guilt is plausible.


[/sblock]

 

[Krug]

Mulling over it, the film is centered much more around The Joker than Batman. The Joker has far more screentime than Batman, and definitely has the best line in the movie. Ironically Heath Ledger probably will get at least a Best Supporting Actor Nomination, despite a role that really should be considered the main one in the movie IMO.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Mulling over it, the film is centered much more around The Joker than Batman. The Joker has far more screentime than Batman, and definitely has the best line in the movie. Ironically Heath Ledger probably will get at least a Best Supporting Actor Nomination, despite a role that really should be considered the main one in the movie IMO.

I'm going to disagree slightly and say that this movie had no Main role; it was largely driven by its ensemble cast. While the Joker had roughly equal or more screen time than the actual Batman, there were IMO too many other characters who also had equally important roles: Gordon, Dent, Bruce Wayne, Lucius Fox, Alfred all made important additions to the movie in some form or fashion, and I think it'd be really difficult to claim that any one actor (even Batman or the Joker) could be called the main role.

What is disappointing to me is that if Ledger gets the nomination, it would be tainted by his death. What I mean by that is, many people (myself included) will always wonder if he was simply nominated because he was a talented actor and this was his last complete movie before he died. Whereas if we simply look at his role objectively, what he created is in fact amazing, and says to me that he was willing to really push himself as an actor and professional. It is probably worth a nomination all its own; regardless of what surrounded his real life and death, that kind of drive and talent is always deserving of respect and commendation. But we'll just never know that for sure.

On the more positive side, maybe the Oscar committees will look at a movie like The Dark Knight and realize "Oh... these genre films can say something profound too." Had Ledger not died, they may not have bothered to look.

 

[el-remmen]

Saw it, and kinda liked it for what it was.

I think Ledger's performance lives up to the hype, and I liked the way they brought in two-face (I really thought they would just set it up for the next movie and we wouldn't get to see him in action - but compared to how most superhero movies with more than one villain tend to flub it, this was very well done).

On the other hand, Batman felt kind of superfluous in his own movie - or perhaps they should have had less of him - I just find live-action very jarring when it comes to men in rubber suits or tights running around fighting or having conversations in an office - there is just a whiff of the ridiculous I cannot shake (something that never bothers me in the original medium).

Also, the Joker seemed to have the power of precognition throughout the movie, which stretched credulity to me - some of which can be explained away by the corrupt police force, but some of which just seemed impossible to pull off.

I wrote a more detailed review on my blog, but since it would violate the no politics rules of the boards I won't link to it.

 

[John Crichton]

Don't confuse the issue, folks. Batman was still the main character. Everything revolved around him and was done to get to him. The Joker was awesome, but it still doesn't take away top billing from the Dark Knight himself.

 

[The Serge]

Basically.

 

[el-remmen]

Don't confuse the issue, folks. Batman was still the main character. Everything revolved around him and was done to get to him. The Joker was awesome, but it still doesn't take away top billing from the Dark Knight himself.

Certainly. It is just that somehow I often felt the movie might have been better without him, or with a lot less of him (and he could still have been the central and main character) - kind of like how the book series is named for Sauron, but we see very little of him.

 

[John Crichton]

Certainly. It is just that somehow I often felt the movie might have been better without him, or with a lot less of him (and he could still have been the central and main character) - kind of like how the book series is named for Sauron, but we see very little of him.

I don't disagree.

 

[EricNoah]

I saw it, I enjoyed it. It wasn't the life-changing experience some reviewers made it out to be.