7 Responses to “The Dark Knight”

1. The_Eggman Says:
   July 20th, 2008 at 3:11 am

   Great movie. I have to see it again. Heath just kills the part of the Joker. Every good thing you’ve heard about this movie is not only right, it only tells half of how good it really is. There isnt a review that could really do this movie justice, and I wont try here either. To anyone that thinks this movie is getting so much attention because Heath is dead, they just havent seen the movie, or they just like to stir the pot and have the need to be ‘different’like that. I wont say that his death didnt help sell this movie a bit more. But his role as The Joker really raises the bar for any actor looking toplay a villian in a ‘comic book’ movie. This to me is nearly the gold standard. Im not one to be all RIP and be sad. Im celebrating that I just saw one of the best performances of this genre to date, and maybe ever. If Im sad about anything, its that I cant see him ever do this again. But then again, its usually best not to fool with near perfection.

   The movie itself is really great as well. The soundtrack, and its use, really made a lot of scenes feel exciting. It was almost a character of its own. It never felt as long as it was, but I will say you do know its long. Most movies now are about 90 mins long, so adding an extra hour will be noticable. I actually appreciated it. Some may not.

   Two Face shows his face(or should I say faces) and its always cool to me to see two villian in one movie if done correctly. Im not so sure they pulled this off as good as they could have. It might be my only bad thing to say about this movie(unless I really want to dig deep and just nit pick it to death, but who wants to do that to such a good movie? Not I, and not here). Harvey Dent is a major part of the movie, so I wouldnt say that I didnt want him in it, but I wish they would have put him in the next one perhaps, if they do make another, and with the success of this one, I think that would be the right call. While Harvey Dent is in it a lot, its a little later in the movie that we see his transformation fully. They did an incredible make up job on Two Face, so it would have been nice if they could have spent more time using the character. But thats a small thing, because it still worked in the plot just fine.

   At times there feels like there is a lot going on. My sisters reaction was she felt at times she couldnt follow all of the plot because of that. I didnt have that trouble, but I can certainly see how people could have that reaction.

   Over all, this movie is top notch. A must see, and if your ass can handle it, maybe a must re-see. Even if you only see this once, its one you will say “Im renting/buying this when it comes out on disk!” So do yourself a favor, believe the hype, and you too will be telling people that ‘THE DARK KNIGHT’ is the must see movie of the summer.

2. The_Walrus Says:
   July 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

   Every once and awhile a movie comes along that creates a sort of MASS HYPNOSIS. Critics and normal people alike buy into the hype, and make themselves believe that a movie is better than what it actually is. I think that is what happened with “The Dark Knight,” because I’m hear to tell you the truth. This movie kinda sucked.

   “The Dark Knight” is a bloated, pompous, pretentious, self-righteous mess. It’s less of a movie than a bunch of Batman episodes strung together. I felt like I was watching 5 episodes of a television series. The movie wasn’t coherent and hardly fulfilling. It asks it’s viewers to take Batman seriously, yet suspend disbelief when it comes to the Joker.

   My major complaint is it’s lack of any sort of fun or whimsy. “The Dark Knight” isn’t so much ‘dark’ as it is a down right bummer. Bruce Wayne acts as if there is nothing more torturous than donning the cowl and flying around. And don’t get me started on the cowl… cause it’s gone. Replaced by a bulbous helmet that looks down-right goofy in daylight.

   Director Christopher Nolan wants the audience to ask serious questions about morality and a ‘code of ethics.’ Which is fine… it’s always been the corner-stone of the Batman franchise and is the distinguishing factor between Batman & Superman. However, when these questions stop being questions and start being a liberal commentary on the Bush administration, it seems less sincere and more like a Democratic commercial. And this comes from a liberal.

   A movie can’t ask the audience to ask these questions without first asking it’s main character to do it. Batman never questions himself, and therefore we never question Batman. Batman believes in what he does, and therefore never questions how far he will go to capture the man with no conscience, the Joker. Batman won’t use a gun, but the Bat-Car will use RPGs. Batman won’t kill, yet has no problem maiming people for life. These are questions that need to be asked, but never do. And because of that, we end up with a movie full of hypocrisy.

   I don’t want to ask these questions, believe me… but the director forced me too. He forced me to by making THIS sort of movie. A movie that takes itself TOO seriously. And when a movie takes itself this seriously, we as the audience are forced to look at it realistically. And Christopher Nolan wanted this. The CGI (refreshingly) is kept to a minimum, but Gotham city itself isn’t Gotham anymore, it’s now just Chicago. And with it’s real tone, it seems LESS real that a man like the Joker (or Batman himself) would actually exist. The Joker doesn’t seem to need a residence, a gang hideout or even money. He has been plucked out of thin air with absolutely no back-story to speak of. He also has seemingly hundreds of henchmen who obviously don’t need money either… a group of bandits that only exist for pure chaos. I could ALMOST buy this is a comic world, but Nolan has taken us out of that comic world, and in doing so makes me not buy into any of this. There is so much of this movie that I don’t buy… and I won’t bore you or ruin the movie by listing all of them, but there is a lot.

   I applaud “The Dark Knight” for taking the source material so seriously, but at the end of the day, it IS a superhero movie. In real life, there are no super-heroes. So by trying to make a “real-life” super-hero move, isn’t that defeating the purpose? When we dream of super-heroes we dream of fun. We dream of flying, or x-ray eyes, or yes… having enough money to make really cool toys and gadgets. That’s what’s fun. That’s what’s FUN about being a super-hero. Without the fun… well it’s just a drag.

3. corneo Says:
   July 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

   I have to agree. Too many time I kept thinking. “why don’t you shoot him?” (I thought it was me and my strange thinking)

   I felt the movie just assume you knew where the joker lived. It doesn’t have the 900 story skyscrapers like the book has. It was like the director was trying to be “dark” but with a modern look.

   It just didn’t take me away to another place and time at all.

4. JMShearer Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 3:08 am

   So this movie has reviewers on both sides. I’ll have to go see it, but it may be awhile. From what I understand, there’s a waiting list of at least a week for tickets in most places. I won’t be going in expecting the 1989 Batman movie, but at this point, I’m not sure I could have even without a little advanced knowlege.

5. Daenub Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 5:37 am

   I saw the movie yesterday and The Walrus has it nailed. The only thing I was really impressed with was Ledgers performance. I thought he nailed what the Joker was supposed to be, a psychopath. But other than that it was all hype, I should have known. Is it just me or is the trend these days a powerful first movie and then disappointing sequel after disappointing sequel?

6. magnumpr Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm

   I thought the movie was very good, Heath Ledger did a good job of playing the Joker, though I give half of that credit to Chris Nolan for the work he did as director. I did feel that the movie could’ve been a little less dark. I don’t mind dark movies, just not so dark that it makes me feel depressed when leaving the theater for a few minutes.

7. chichef Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 am

   I have to say that I liked the movie too. I don’t think it would have been possible for it to live up to the hype, but I think it gave the hype a run for its money.

   As for the darkness of it, I liked that. I really get tired of every movie having those clean endings were everything is settled and everybody leaves the theater feeling good about themselves. I can’t say that life is always so formulaic, and I dig movies that steer away from that.

   I also liked that the Joker really had no backstory; he just showed up and wreaked havoc. He was more a force of nature than a human being and I think that giving him a backstory that explained what caused him to be so insane would have taken away from that. He even told two different stories about how he got his scars.

   I will admit that I have not read the comics so my opinion probably counts for dick, but in my comic book ignorant world this movie worked.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.