The Dark Knight (2008) (1 Viewer)

[Nick Martin]

I was the one who mentioned it.

That man's name was Brian Douglass, and he was a poilce officer who led the vigilante members of the support group "CITIZENS FOR BATMAN".

I had mentioned this as an example of the viral campaign being so skillfully tied to the plot of the film - anyone who followed it could gain further enjoyment out of the film knowing those little details. To those who didn't follow it, that wannabe was just some nameless victim and fool, while those who did follow it actually know something about that guy, and that's a good thing all around. It's not critical need-to-know information, but it isn't useless information either.

 

[hanshotfirst1138]

Wow. I was totally blown away. They hype is true.

Let's Put A Smile On That Face!

So sneers The Joker, Batman’s nemesis, in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. And a smile I had, leaving the theater exhilarated by one of the most extraordinary moviegoing experiences of recent years. Arriving as the sequel to the highly-praised Batman Begins, the tidal wave of excitement, made thermonuclear by the tragic passing of actor Heath Ledger, has been riding on the film for months, bolstered by viral marketing. And for once, ladies and gentlemen, the hype is true.
One complaint that I had about Nolan’s first outing with the Caped Crusader was David S. Goyer’s frequently awful dialogue. His pulpy sensibility seemed almost at odds with Nolan’s attempt at a naturalistic vision. But with him taking story scribe credit, The Dark Knight finds this pulpy edge and rides it, transforming pop clichés in a potent power-punch of moral conundrums and powerhouse storytelling. For its first hour or so, the movie is your standard genre fare: superheroes, gadgets, battles with bad guys, romance, and on and on. Then, around the hour mark, the film takes a turn, and in the words of another masterful blockbuster, it’s “Express elevator to hell, going down!” Once Jim Gordon is shot, I began to become leery with the film. He’s not really dead. Surely the film wouldn’t have that kind of guts. As it transpired, I was right. It didn’t. It had more. No, he wasn’t really dead. But the film had the guts to kill someone else. And as The Dark Knight hits it downward spiral, it’s a terrifying journey like no summer blockbuster before it.

Where to even begin? Nolan’ skill with action sequences has come leaps and bounds since his slightly edit-happy first installment, and sans a second unit, he’s shooting everything himself. A cramped sequence displays a great sense of claustrophobia, and the payoff is spectacular, and had the whole of my theater, including myself, standing up and cheering and clapping. Like its predecessor, it makes you wait, but that’s alright, since it worth waiting for. The finale, with Batman checking out the entirety of Gotham through a sonar web, is dazzling, and film opens with a few short sequences just to whet your appetite. Still, anyone with a camera can smash things these days. It’s the powerful moral conundrums that mark the film, transforming what could in other hands be simply comic-book pulp trash into something resembling art. But it never loses its pulpy origins either, and this strange synergy is what gives the film an energy all its own, transforming the stuff of pulp superheroes into art.

As with the last installment, the theme here is about what people symbolized about abstractions rather than concrete ideas. Unlike the rather sledgehammer-subtle "FEAR IS THE THEME OF THE MOVIE" platitudes of Begins, however, Knight's many questions aren't given any easy answers, and are often left to the audience. And the Joker is a deliciously perverse wild card into this cocktail. Also superb is Aaron Eckhart, as the wonderfully tragic hero transformed into a monster as per his own prophecy. But the man of the hour, the one that everyone want to hear about, is deserving of the Oscar nod that’s being talked about. A terrify force of evil, Ledger’s Joker is no cartoon grotesque. He’s an anarchist madman, buried beneath his makeup is face of a true monster, who battles with ideas rather than explosives. A brilliant performance, his eyes windows in the blackest soul of hell, Ledger is as brilliant as you’ve heard. At turns funny, Ledger is also terrifying, one of his finest moments being the party sequence midway through the film, as a genuinely frightening yet strangely sympathetic monster, his finest scene being a hospital encounter with the second demon that he’s created. a tragic loss to the world of acting, seeing such a talent like this on the rise of his career pass on. But Ledger couldn’t ask for a better swan song, and he’s left us one hell of a legacy. Rest in peace Heath. We’ll miss you.

Nolan incorporates all kinds of cues, including some horror-film-esque imagery into the world that he creates. Had I stepped outside for even a second and taken note of how the entire movie was based on a comic-book starring a man in tights, I might have had some potshots to take at it. But the film immersed me so thoroughly, that I didn’t. Nolan plays a dangerous game with The Dark Knight, dancing on a wire between pulp and high art, and somehow fuses the two, fining some kind of medium, at once both and neither. For a mainstream superhero movie to take on such dark subject matter and commentary on out modern age is nothing short of fearless. For such an experiment to work quite frankly borders on a miracle, but Nolan’s film reaches and almost nightmarish fever-pitch that left me dazzled. Film buff that I am, I hesitate throw around the M word for a movie based on a comic book, but what the hell? This is a masterpiece.

Not a great review, but something I cobbled together as best I could. Hard to get my thoughts down on paper here. Maybe someone will glean something anyways .

 

[Tim Glover]

Every film warrants some 'nitpicking' and no film is above it. Especially one as high profile at The Dark Knight. Loving a film as well as finding some faults is ok...and that's what these discussion threads are about...discussing our reactions to these films.

If we can't do that here and it's been done politely and respectfully, where can you do it?

 

[Nick Martin]

1. There's discussion.
2. There's questions.
3. There's looking for faults just for the sake of conversation.

I don't know how anyone else defines 'nitpicking', but number three is my definition of it. The problem with it is that the distinction between checking for flaws for the sake of putting something down, and checking for flaws to make sure everyone's on the same level of understanding and perception is a bit blurry enough as it is without a high-profile film like this blurring the line even further. Everything that's well-liked by the masses will have its detractors harp on it just because they want to be 'the other guys', so to speak. With that blurred line, it's hard to tell who's who sometimes...though having a laundry list of complaints would be a telltale sign.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

we all got em. For the record, I enjoyed the movie, I just think there are noteworthy flaws amongst its considerable merits.

 

[Brent M]

Just saw TDK again last night and it was just as good, if not better the second time around. Like any film, you can "nitpick" it to death if you want to, but for me that takes the fun out of watching movies. They're meant to be entertaining and over-analyzing kind of defeats the purpose in my book. This is one of the most enjoyable movie experiences I've had in a long time and I can't imagine anything on the horizon that will be as fulfilling as this film was for me(maybe Quantum of Solace, but that's a long way off). I may have to go to the theater for a third viewing which is something I haven't done in over 3 years(Revenge of the Sith). Regardless, it's going to be a looooooong wait for the Blu-Ray.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Again, no one's saying that casual viewers aren't confused by the "universes" involved and that they "must" know that BB/TDK aren't an extension of the earlier films.

I - and many others - DO think it's absurd that a professional film critic was ignorant in this regard, though. He earns his living by knowing about movies and discussing them. It's ridiculous that Reed didn't understand that BB was a reboot, and I continue to find your defense of his ignorance to be extremely perplexing.

If you Aunt Minnie doesn't get it, that's fine, but it's appalling for someone who's been a major film critic for DECADES to display such ignorance...

 

[Blake Comeaux]

Has anyone else noticed The Dark Knight is #1 on imdb's Top 250 list with currently a 9.4 above The Godfather's 9.1 score? Not that this list has much value/accuracy to me personally, but it is an example of how audiences in general are declaring this the best movie ever made a bit prematurely. (Not to mention that I'm sure there are overzealous fans that gave it a 10 before even having seen it). It just came out and already has more total votes than Psycho! I'm not knocking the movie. I personally think it was the best film I've seen in quite some time. I'm curious to see if it maintains this position over time.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

One thing that left me unsure of... After the failed assassination attempt on the Mayor, Harvey Dent has one of the guys tied up to a chair and threatening him. This is the guy with the police uniform and the nametag that says Officer Rachel Dawes.

Is that guy scarecrow? I couldn't figure it out. He looks similar enough to him to leave me wondering about it, but also different enough to where I thought it might not be him.

 

[Brent M]

No, that wasn't Scarecrow.

 

[Nick Martin]

Batman said he was an Arkham patient named Schiff, and was unreliable if anyone wanted to get information from him because of his schizophrenia.

There's one other person who looks like Crane. One of the guards on the prisoner ferry looks like him, but that's just a resemblance. It's not him dressed up.

 

[TerryRL]

In Nolan's two films we've already seen Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Zsaz, Scarecrow, Falcone, Joker, Maroni, and Two-Face. Amazingly, Nolan has avoided the movies feeling too crowded and, in my opinion, Batman never feels like a secondary character with seven villains (four major ones) from the comics making significant appearances in the two movies. I can only imagine what's in store for us with the next movie.

 

[Kachi Khatri]

I hope to see a more varied choice than the usual norm. Villains that can work in the parameters of Nolan's thematic material.

Some random thoughts..

Black Mask - easy choice for a crime mob and blend in the criminal activity and provide more detective work for Batman

Talia al Ghul - is one I can see easily worked into a script since we've had R’as al Ghul. Can add some aura of mysteriousnous in her character that can add some suspense.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I thought Ra's presumed his family was dead in Begins? In anycase it doesn't sound like he had much practical contact with a daughter (who was never mentioned or singled out for special attention previously). To have her show up in Gotham now seems to be not predicated on any internal logic within the films, merely a nod to fanboys (much like the bone tossed in S-m3 w/ Venom).
There would been possibilities with Talia had this been set-up with some dialouge in Begins, but now out of the blue it will just seem every bit what it would actually be- a transparent attempt at fill-in-the-blank romantic interest.
If she were to show up at the forefront of another League of Shadows Gotham destruction plot, don't you think that would feel just a wee-bit derivative of the first film...especially if Bruce is shown to get close with her in the first two acts only to have to violently oppose her for idealistic reasons in the third. And I don't think a pure revenge motive works either, because again Ra's was not shown to have any recent close ties with a daughter, and to void that eould require scenes of very clunky, contrived exposition. Just seems to me that ship sailed.


I'm still suprised that Nolan set-up and paid off Two-face all in the last act of this film, insted of moving him to the third and giving his plotline some room to breathe. The Angel of Death scenario might have even played better with room for more reflective down-time for both Dent and Batman . It still could have hewed to the same trajectory and taken place over a similarly condensed time period. oh well, that ship has sailed now too.

 

[MikeRS]

See, I can't imagine a better way for the Nolan vision of the Two Face story to be told. It didn't feel rushed or condensed to me because this screenplay (ie:The ultimate Joker Story) was completely structured to revolve around the rise and fall of Harvey Dent. This film is his story. His tragedy. It's inextricably tied to his tale on all levels. What the Nolans have done here is really the antithesis of the Spidey 3/Venom/Sandman debacle. Harvey's rise and fall is almost ENTIRELY the focus of this movie. Harvey's heroism is what keeps Bruce focused as Batman. Harvey's integrity is what makes the Joker so determined to destroy him. And Harvey's eventual destruction is what ultimately leads to turning Gotham against Batman, possibly forever. On a major level, this is the film about the tragedy of Harvey Dent and Two-Face. I don't think the Nolans had an interest in using him as a traditional antagonist, so I'm not left wanting more from his character in a future film. And I definitely don't fathom the concept of spreading his arc between two films.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It would get really old watching Harvey go on a crime spree, flipping a coin at the cruial moments over and over again for an entire 3rd Batman film. Confining Two-Face to TDK only was the proper decision.

 

[DavidPla]

Besides, they've already done that for a third film. It was called Batman Forever.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I love Two-Face, and love this portrayal of him, putting it in this film heightens his story and the Joker's story. His is essentially the two sides of both men, trapped between them. I agree with Patrick and Mike.

I'd love to see Eckhart play him again, but the character absolutely belonged in this film, thanks to the story and thematical structure Goyer and Nolan brothers built.

While I am the first guy to call TDK as much movie as possible to fit into 150 minutes, it's balanced and tightly knitted; the whole thing feel remarkably poignant and epic. It's really saying something to say it's almost everything great in the long history of the Joker, the Batman, Two-Face, and Gordon all distilled into a single film and storyline.

Does that mean the third film might have an impossible task? Maybe. But if TDK is all we get...then I still say we were very well served

 

[Paul_Scott]

Interesting you bring up coin-tossing and Forever because (and you will never hear me say this again) this was one thing that I felt a greater sense of 'rightness' to in one of the previous four films, than I did in Nolans take.
In TDK, I never felt the coin was ever anything more than a contrivance and an obligation to his comic book counterpart. He didn't seem like he would have operated all that much differently in his vengence quest if he hadn't had it.
You're right that spreading Harvey's arc across two films would no longer make TDK- Harveys story, but it would have pointed to a third film that could organically explore themes of vigilantism- and the effectivness of lethal force vs non-lethal intimidation-amongst other things, which seems to me completely apropos for a Batman movie. You could have also had more room to show Harvey's duality after his scaring, rather than making it simply a pre/post aspect. (Harvey may not be 100% good pre- but he seems 100% bad post)
Expanding the room for Harvey's arc would also have allowed the opportunity for Harvey to go out on a 'good' note-to make a positive sacrifice which would give the third films stated 'redemption' theme a natural thruway.I realize I won't get much traction here discussing this because the film is brilliant, a masterpiece, and the greatest comic book film ever made and therefore could never be anything other than what it is-or else risk being total crap.
I disagree, but don't have the patience to pursue it.

 

[Chris Atkins]

My biggest nit with TDK was when Batman and Rachael survived the fall from Bruce's penthouse. Or did I miss something?