The Dark Knight

[[PCE]el_Prez]

It fucking rocked

 

[UniversalWolf]

Here's what I didn't like about TDK, and why I liked Iron Man better even though I didn't love Iron Man:


--<SPOILERS>--



1) The atmosphere is bland and lifeless.

The movie's Gotham City is actually Chicago, and while Chicago is a good choice as far as grittiness goes, there simply wasn't enough variety or liveliness for the atmosphere to be anything more than passable. The streets are gritty. The mayor's office is gritty. The police station is gritty. The bars are gritty. Ho-hum. It's all dark and grey, which is lethal when coupled with the movie's uniform spiritual darkness.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the few opportunities The Dark Knight has for really interesting settings are wasted. Batman's hideout is the blandest, most boring "bat cave" I've ever seen: a big white rectangle with low ceilings - yuck. A spectacular bat cave could've offset the drabness. Hong Kong is shot to be, you guessed it, gritty, so it looks the same as the Chicago settings. Even the scenes at restaurants and parties are boring in terms of their scenery. You would think Bruce Wayne, being a multi-billionaire, would throw his bashes somewhere that didn't look like a reception room at a hotel or a conference room in a office building. There's a short little unimportant bit with a sailing boat; it's one of the most memorable scenes in the movie solely because it's one of the only ones that isn't grey or brown.

Compare this to Iron Man, which had LA, casinos, deserts, cliffside mansions, and secret laboratories, not to mention air combat. Much more interesting.


2) Too much plot, too many characters.

I'm assuming there will be another Batman movie after this one. If so, it would've been better to leave the whole Harvey Dent part of the story for the next movie. Keep his character, sure, but keep his character out of the main plot for now. That would've been a great hook for the next installment and it would've cut this one down by about a third, making it tighter and more focused. The way it is there's just too much going on. When there's too much going on, none of what's going on gets the attention it deserves, which results in me not caring about any of it. There's a difference between a story with a lot of action and a crisp pace and a story as told by a meth addict - TDK is closer to the latter. I got bored with it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: you catch the Joker (and if the story were to be realistic, he'd be spirited away to Gitmo or some other more secure place than the regular police station); but that's not the end, because he escapes (partially because you, um...took his handcuffs off? What?), and you have to spend the next hour catching him again. Why doesn't he escape a third time? And a fourth? Everything in the story after he "escapes" is superfluous, and should've been left for the next movie.

Again, compare this to Iron Man, which had plenty of action and moved along quickly, but kept to a very specific series of events with a very specific conclusion. Granted, I thought Iron Man's plot was predictable, but at least it had correct scope and pacing without artificial prolongation. And when the bad guy was beaten, he was beaten.


3) Humorless.

The tone of the movie is as uniformly drab as the scenery. It's morose, pessimistic, angry, and violent - none of which is intrinsically bad, if not for the uniformity. Everyone is deadly serious, all the time (except for the Joker, of course, but his humor is not really humor). This movie needs to read up on the concept of comic relief.

The main thing that made Iron Man better than the average superhero movie was the comedy - not so much that it turned into a farce, but enough that you appreciated the serious parts more because they weren't unremitting. It had a variation in tone which TDK lacks.

4) The ending is uninteresting.

It's forced, implausible (even considering the movie's other implausibilities), and not the least bit memorable. It also ties in to my other comments about the overabundance of plot. The Joker is the star of TDK. Yet the final showdown doesn't involve the Joker at all. It all hinges on the idea that the city is going to fall to pieces if Harvey Dent is anything other than a pure crusader for justice. Why is that true if Gotham hasn't fallen apart after everything else that's happened? I thought we just proved the Joker wrong with the conclusion of the whole silly detonators-on-the-boats scheme? Batman is willing to take the rap for a bunch of murders based on a premise that's just been contradicted? And even if he does, why is that even a big deal? He would have to be caught for it to matter, and he isn't going to be caught - especially with the police commisioner conspiring with him. Forgettable.

I thought Iron Man's ending was boring too, but at least it made sense.


I didn't hate TDK, but I don't think it lived up to the hype. I liked Iron Man better.

 

[Malky]

That is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on the internet.

1) The atmosphere is bland and lifeless.

The movie's Gotham City is actually Chicago, and while Chicago is a good choice as far as grittiness goes, there simply wasn't enough variety or liveliness for the atmosphere to be anything more than passable. The streets are gritty. The mayor's office is gritty. The police station is gritty. The bars are gritty. Ho-hum. It's all dark and grey, which is lethal when coupled with the movie's uniform spiritual darkness.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the few opportunities The Dark Knight has for really interesting settings are wasted. Batman's hideout is the blandest, most boring "bat cave" I've ever seen: a big white rectangle with low ceilings - yuck. A spectacular bat cave could've offset the drabness. Hong Kong is shot to be, you guessed it, gritty, so it looks the same as the Chicago settings. Even the scenes at restaurants and parties are boring in terms of their scenery. You would think Bruce Wayne, being a multi-billionaire, would throw his bashes somewhere that didn't look like a reception room at a hotel or a conference room in a office building. There's a short little unimportant bit with a sailing boat; it's one of the most memorable scenes in the movie solely because it's one of the only ones that isn't grey or brown.

Compare this to Iron Man, which had LA, casinos, deserts, cliffside mansions, and secret laboratories, not to mention air combat. Much more interesting.

Gotham City is bland and lifeless. It's a city on the edge, a city with serious problems and in all honesty I think this should've been explored more. I feel like there were times when The Dark Knight wasn't gritty enough. I think my major problem with your review and expectations is that you consistently compare it to Iron Man - the polar opposite of Batman. Batman is not flashy. He is the antithesis of flashy. Gotham should be shot in low-lighting, emphasizing the dirt and grime (I feel like Batman Begins did a better job of this). As for Hong Kong being shot as "gritty", I don't really get it. The film spends 15 minutes in Hong Kong, most of it inside of a skyscraper. The five minutes of plot development in Hong Kong take place in the daytime and there isn't a speck of "grit" in sight. Just because something happens at night doesn't make it "gritty" or "dark." Batman operates at night. That's just his MO.

As for your complaints about lack of a Bat cave, Wayne and Alfred had to improvise since Wayne Manor was destroyed in the first film.

2) Too much plot, too many characters.

I'm assuming there will be another Batman movie after this one. If so, it would've been better to leave the whole Harvey Dent part of the story for the next movie. Keep his character, sure, but keep his character out of the main plot for now. That would've been a great hook for the next installment and it would've cut this one down by about a third, making it tighter and more focused. The way it is there's just too much going on. When there's too much going on, none of what's going on gets the attention it deserves, which results in me not caring about any of it. There's a difference between a story with a lot of action and a crisp pace and a story as told by a meth addict - TDK is closer to the latter. I got bored with it.

I don't feel this way at all. I felt like all of the characters and plot-lines, especially Harvey Dent, had meticulous attention paid to them. It was a very tight film. Dent's story-arc is integral to the plot and themes - it's his movie, not Batman's. If they had left all of the Two-Face stuff out it would've felt incomplete and awkward.

Also, the Nolan brothers wanted this movie to be self-contained. At the time of production they weren't thinking about making a sequel at all.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: you catch the Joker (and if the story were to be realistic, he'd be spirited away to Gitmo or some other more secure place than the regular police station);

Yeah, they're going to put the Joker in Guantanamo. Right. They took him to the MCU holding cells because Gordon believes it to be the safest place in the city. Also because Batman was going to interrogate him.

but that's not the end, because he escapes (partially because you, um...took his handcuffs off? What?), and you have to spend the next hour catching him again. Why doesn't he escape a third time? And a fourth? Everything in the story after he "escapes" is superfluous, and should've been left for the next movie.

Gordon took his cuffs off before he left Bats in the room. Joker's cuffs were put back on and presumably the Bullock-esque detective took his handcuffs off in order to fight him. It was a dumb move and he pays for it like five minutes later.

The Joker will always escape because that's what The Joker does. "We're destined to do this forever."

Again, compare this to Iron Man, which had plenty of action and moved along quickly, but kept to a very specific series of events with a very specific conclusion. Granted, I thought Iron Man's plot was predictable, but at least it had correct scope and pacing without artificial prolongation. And when the bad guy was beaten, he was beaten.

Again, this is your issue - it's like comparing The Princess Bride to Lord of the Rings. Iron Man is a straightforward action/comedy comic book movie. The Dark Knight is a crime drama with a couple of dudes in costumes.

3) Humorless.

The tone of the movie is as uniformly drab as the scenery. It's morose, pessimistic, angry, and violent - none of which is intrinsically bad, if not for the uniformity. Everyone is deadly serious, all the time (except for the Joker, of course, but his humor is not really humor). This movie needs to read up on the concept of comic relief.

The main thing that made Iron Man better than the average superhero movie was the comedy - not so much that it turned into a farce, but enough that you appreciated the serious parts more because they weren't unremitting. It had a variation in tone which TDK lacks.

I'm going to stop repeating my "This isn't fucking Iron Man" mantra now.

Batman is not funny. It is not supposed to be funny. If you want a funny Batman, go watch Adam West or Joel Schumacher's abortions. Batman is not a lighthearted super hero, he is a dark and tragic figure born out of misery and hatred. A Batman adaptation should be morose, pessimistic, angry, and violent. That is what comic fans like about the character. That's not to say there should be a little comic relief, and I felt like this movie had it in spades. Alfred had some great moments, and I thought the "I'm going to tell them it was all your idea" exchange between him and Bruce was terrific.

Like I said, this movie is a crime drama. It's not a colorful flick about a hard-living playboy in a metal suit flying around righting wrongs. It's about a slightly psychotic billionaire kicking the shit out of bad guys and going up against an even more psychotic murderer. There's no room for Las Vegas casinos and airplanes with stripper poles.

4) The ending is uninteresting.

It's forced, implausible (even considering the movie's other implausibilities), and not the least bit memorable. It also ties in to my other comments about the overabundance of plot. The Joker is the star of TDK. Yet the final showdown doesn't involve the Joker at all.

Harvey Dent is the primary protagonist of this movie. Batman is the "star." You're looking at it the wrong way.

It all hinges on the idea that the city is going to fall to pieces if Harvey Dent is anything other than a pure crusader for justice. Why is that true if Gotham hasn't fallen apart after everything else that's happened?

Gotham has fallen apart. It's streets are devastated and it's police force and political system are completely corrupt. Harvey Dent is giving people hope - give someone hope and then snatch it away and they will feel worse than ever. Dent can right the wrongs that Batman can't - he did more in an hour in court than Batman has done in a year. Allow him to fall in the public eye and you undo all of the good that has been done.

I thought we just proved the Joker wrong with the conclusion of the whole silly detonators-on-the-boats scheme?

Eh, not really. Joker still drove Dent mad, so he won there. He's set a precedent for "freaks" in the same way that Batman inspired heroes. He might have failed with the boat scheme but that doesn't mean he's lost the war - and he knows it.

Batman is willing to take the rap for a bunch of murders based on a premise that's just been contradicted? And even if he does, why is that even a big deal? He would have to be caught for it to matter, and he isn't going to be caught - especially with the police commisioner conspiring with him. Forgettable.

He takes the rap because that's what Gotham needs him to do. "You can be the outcast. You can make the choices no one else can make." That's the whole point of Gordon's monologue at the end. It's a big deal because it will make it harder for Bats to operate, and harder for Gordon to help him. Furthermore, Batman never wanted to be a "villain." He wanted to inspire good, he wanted to rid the streets of madmen and evil. Instead, he has given rise to a new form of both, and he has become what he hates in the public eye.

I didn't hate TDK, but I don't think it lived up to the hype. I liked Iron Man better.

You suck.

 

[RonPerlman]

That is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on the internet.

Good thing you managed to top it, Tim.

Gotham City is bland and lifeless. It's a city on the edge, a city with serious problems and in all honesty I think this should've been explored more. I feel like there were times when The Dark Knight wasn't gritty enough.

Not enough Azrael

I felt like all of the characters and plot-lines, especially Harvey Dent, had meticulous attention paid to them. It was a very tight film.

Except for Rachel Dawes, who was an appendage this time around, and Jim Gordon, whose plotline is "faking his death for poorly explained reasons" and "spouting a monologue in response to his 6 year old son's question".

Dent's story-arc is integral to the plot and themes - it's his movie, not Batman's. If they had left all of the Two-Face stuff out it would've felt incomplete and awkward.

The movie would've been lost without scenes patterned after several Charles Bronson movies

The Joker will always escape because that's what The Joker does. "We're destined to do this forever."

The Joker does that so Time Warner can sell Fruit Roll Ups

Again, this is your issue - it's like comparing The Princess Bride to Lord of the Rings. Iron Man is a straightforward action/comedy comic book movie. The Dark Knight is a crime drama with a couple of dudes in costumes.

So does that mean Dark Knight is a 3 hour slog through trees?

Like I said, this movie is a crime drama. It's not a colorful flick about a hard-living playboy in a metal suit flying around righting wrongs. It's about a slightly psychotic billionaire kicking the shit out of bad guys and going up against an even more psychotic murderer. There's no room for Las Vegas casinos and airplanes with stripper poles.

So it's basically a bad episode of the Wire with a guy in a stupid looking bat costume

Dent can right the wrongs that Batman can't - he did more in an hour in court than Batman has done in a year. Allow him to fall in the public eye and you undo all of the good that has been done.

I don't think that sours people on forcing people of color into holding cells. Didn't 1990s New York teach us anything?

You suck.

Well written refutation, Tim.

 

[Makagulfazel]

Best Batman Movie.

Period.

I was skeptical about the choice of actor for the Joker, but man, Heath Ledger nailed it.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Everyone is deadly serious, all the time.

I try to avoid responding to critisicms since it's mostly opinions, but it just seems many of your points are bordering so close between opinion and fact, that the two get confused with eachother, and I'm really bored.

I don't know how much of the movie you remember, but I don't remember everyone having a single serious expression and manner about them on a constant basis. Perhaps other movies are full-to-bursting with sarcasm that it throws off movies that offer more than "insert sarcastic, sometimes witty remarks here" moments. The Dark Knight had humour outside of the Joker, especially the parts that were in-character such as Bruce Wayne's "you think I should go to the hospital" scene.

Some other things you mentioned were how Joker would be hauled to Gitmo. If only Gitmo was in the Batman universe along with instant-travel. It was also mentioned several times in the movie that Gordon's station was the most secure holding area in the city. I guess the whole concept of corruption isn't feasible.

I also don't know how the ending to The Dark Knight didn't make sense to you. It's pretty straight and the title might be a hint.

And when the bad guy was beaten, he was beaten.

"You blew us up and all we got was our leader was kind of scarred a bit."

It all hinges on the idea that the city is going to fall to pieces if Harvey Dent is anything other than a pure crusader for justice

No, it hinges on the idea that the "hero of Gotham" loses all he worked for when he turns into a wanted criminal. It's like when a mayor says "hookers and drugs are bad" then gets caught screwing a drugged-up hooker two years later.

Batman is willing to take the rap for a bunch of murders based on a premise that's just been contradicted? And even if he does, why is that even a big deal? He would have to be caught for it to matter, and he isn't going to be caught - especially with the police commisioner conspiring with him. Forgettable.

You missed the concept of how he is no longer affiliated with cops (the part where he axes the Bat-sign flickered too fast?)? Even when he was, before he was wanted for murder, it was unofficial. Besides, he took the blame for Harvey's crimes, not Joker's. Saving face means a lot in a public position, y'know. It happens in real life, too. Just like teleporting freshly caught terrorists to Gitmo from a locked-down, corrupt city where Joker's goons know the convoy paths the armoured vehicles took with Harvey Dent in tow.

Too much plot, too many characters.

There was one plot- Batman trying to stop Joker's chaos-spree. There were just many elements of that plot, but I don't know how it's too much. The plot is moved forward through events, otherwise all movies would be an hour-long narration of a one-minute horse race. And I guess anything more than five characters is system overload.

I guess much of what you said is opinion, though.

 

[Maphusio]

More sales news... This one has broken more records than I can count.

Opening day, it pulled in over 66 million USD. Opening weekend over 155 million USD. The extended weekend (3 days) 253million USD making it the highest grossing opening sales for a film in hollywood history.

 

[TTTimo]

Well, to me this movie was more entertaining than most of the blockbuster movies from last year, and that is good enough for me. Even though there was a lot going on in the movie, the pacing felt alright and I could still get the gist of the plot (what with noisy kids around who should have gone back to school...). And, not caught up in the hype, Heath Ledger's Joker was definitely the highlight of the movie. Christian Bale's performance (as title character) was outshone by the Joker.

Yeah, I liked Joker's magic trick

 

[Maphusio]

Yeah, I liked Joker's magic trick

Where did that go anyway?!


Ugh kids at the theater... That's the one thing that I hate, hate, HATE to deal with. They either talk during the whole movie as they can't keep still or start kicking your seat. The worst is when folks bring their babies to a fracking loud action/adventure movie... What the hell do you think your child is going to do? Not cry?

The other fun experiences at movies involve teens and cell phones... Can you PLEASE put that away for the duration of the movie?! Christ, and if you bring it to their attention, look out as they will then make it a point to piss you and everyone else off by waiving that phone in the air until their arm gets tired... *sighs*. /end vent

 

[Silencer]

Too bad Ledger died, because The Dark Knight would've made his career as a serious actor and not just a pretty boy.

Look at the bright side, at least he won't get to spoil this own memory with acting in BAD movies.

If you could put Robert Downey's Iron Man in a movie with Heath Ledger's Joker you would have something really good.

Wouldn't happen without a bunch of lawsuits anyway

 

[Moving Target]

Yeah, I liked Joker's magic trick

Where did that go anyway?!

Eyeball of the guy he "showed" it to.

...yea. The folks next to me got it. "Oh SHIT!"

I thought the movie was great. Gary Oldman did a fantastic job as Gordon.... but, well, he's Gary Oldman. He even managed to salvage that silly role he had in the 5th Element. No mean feat, that.

I could've done without Maggie Gylenhall (sp.)... so, I'm kind of embarrassed to say this, but.... I was glad when her character died. Yep. Put a real nice end to the irritating "will they or won't they" Bruce Wayne/her love thing.

Two-Face was very cool, and the entire shift of Harvey going the direction he did was handled quite well.

And Ledger's Joker... well... it was incredible. His performance actually exceeded my expectations, which is unusual. Hell of a last role.

My only serious complaint about the movie was the score. Dear.... Lord... It was seriously one of the more horrible movie scores I've ever heard in a major motion picture.

The quality of the score reminded me of those movies from the 30s and 40s.... those movies they'd churn out at the rate of two or three a month, pay the orchestra arrangers in bulk practically, and end up with this... mush... that could be put in almost anywhere.

In the same way, The Dark Knight's score could be described as "generic action movie with too many pauses." Like someone said, "Ok, this part's got a lot of action, so make that 'action-y' sound.... and here's a tense moment, so hold that one note on the violin for thirty seconds."

It was very distracting.

But... well, that's a relatively minor gripe. Very good movie, hope there's a sequel, and I have no idea who they're putting in again if they do that.

 

[maximaz]

I'm so frigging jealous, I can't see it till like the first week of august. I hope it's still in IMAX by then. I gots to see it there.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

And Ledger's Joker... well... it was incredible. His performance actually exceeded my expectations, which is unusual. Hell of a last role.

actually, it won't be his last role. there is a Terry Gilliam movie in post production starring him, entitled "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus", which is even more depressing, considering the recent track record of the actor (i.e. I'm Not There and The Dark Knight). my guess is the man could have turned into one of our favorites over time. oh well, c'est la vie.

 

[Malky]

My only serious complaint about the movie was the score. Dear.... Lord... It was seriously one of the more horrible movie scores I've ever heard in a major motion picture.

The quality of the score reminded me of those movies from the 30s and 40s.... those movies they'd churn out at the rate of two or three a month, pay the orchestra arrangers in bulk practically, and end up with this... mush... that could be put in almost anywhere.

In the same way, The Dark Knight's score could be described as "generic action movie with too many pauses." Like someone said, "Ok, this part's got a lot of action, so make that 'action-y' sound.... and here's a tense moment, so hold that one note on the violin for thirty seconds."

I thought Zimmer's score was pretty terrific. His Batman theme is way more interesting and intense than Danny Elfman's could ever hope to be. The Joker's theme is super intense and chaotic - I love the steadily rising guitar, it made me feel so fucking tense when it was used. Great for Ledger's interpretation of the character, since you never know what he's going to do next. All of the incidental music is good too. I've been jamming the OST for a couple of weeks now.

It's miles beyond Iron Man's score, which is the only negative thing I have to say about that movie.

I really loved the absence of a score at moments in The Dark Knight. The entire chase sequence is free from music, and the sound effects are so bombastic that it really immerses you in what's going on.

 

[TheWesDude]

universal wolf, you totally do not get the general run of events/timeline of what happens in the batman universe or even understand it obviously.

when i get home later tonite i may tear your post apart, but you obviously never read any comic books in the series or ever watched a batman movie before the schwartenegger/carey movie.

you did not like the batman movie because you didnt understand what it is and why its so great.

 

[horse]

so- to understand a movie that is based on a forking COMIC book, you have to delve into the batman "universe"?

either you are kidding, or i dont get it, or you are some sort of rabid comic book loony that deserves any form of harsh criticism of your approach to popculture. and your personal hygiene.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

batman was one superhero i never got into reading, and i still "got" the movie and thought it brilliant. *shrugs*

 

[Confalone]

batman was one superhero i never got into reading, and i still "got" the movie and thought it brilliant. *shrugs*

Same here, I was never a HUGE fan of the Batman comics and I came away from the movie the exact same way.

 

[raskijan]

Two things. Well, and only one is negative.

#1. Christian Bale's voice at times. I can understand the reason for the rasp, but there were one or two times that it was laid on way too thick. Works great in most scenes, such as when he "interrogates" the Joker, but near the end talking to Gordon I rolled my eyes.

#2. Heath Ledger's performance was so incredible, and fit so well, that I was actually depressed at the end of the movie. A brilliant actor whose work I greatly admire, and the fucker has the gall to die on my birthday (Yeh, and I know saying that makes me sound like a horribly selfish twat).

I can see why, in an interview Ledger did before his death, he said that he had immense trouble dealing with his role as the Joker. He goes so deep you can't even recognize the actor. The medication he died from was for insomnia and anxiety that he reportedly was suffering because of how much he put into the character. Then again, while he said, ""I'm too old to have the bloody energy to play that part," he also called it 'the most fun I’ve ever had, or probably ever will have, playing a character.'

In any case, I thought it was an excellent movie, and since I didn't really pay any attention to the hype surrounding it–with the exception of Ledger's Joker–it certainly surpassed my expectations.

 

[Malky]

Ledger's death had absolutely nothing to do with the character. So tired of hearing that bullshit gossip. It's been said so many times over the past few months that Ledger greatly enjoyed the role, and after every scene he reverted to his old self and hung out with everyone like any normal actor would.

He had a drug problem, and he self-medicated himself to the point where he accidentally overdosed. He took three different kinds of sleeping pills in combination with xanax, hydrocodone, and a strong antibiotic he was prescribed for a lung infection. This kind of shit happens to people every day, it just so happened that it happened to a celebrity this time.