The Dark Knight

[House Quake]

I beleive that if you removed all the flaws from this movie... you would have the greatest movie...... EVER.

[spoiler]That said... no movie is 100% flawless and we can nit-pick at all of them.  Whatever flaws this movie had were minor... and none of them took away from making this a top flight film. IMO this was a great crime drama with a superhero/villain twist. The writer and director did a great job at combining multiple story lines into one congruent film.  A feat not too often tried... and even more seldom successful.  Did it really matter that you knew very little about the cops Harvey ofted...?  Go watch movies like the Godfather and see how much screen time a lot of the underlings get who do the dirty work before they get axed. This movie wasn't about those guys... but they served thier purpose. 

Most of the primary characters, on the other hand,  were well acted while having depth and/or purpose.  As much as a few people dislike the 'love' interest in a movie, Rachael served a purpose.  She was a stabilizing catalyst for Bruce and a destabilizing catalyst for Harvey.  Sure they could have went another way.... but then the movie may not has been as good on the whole.

I notice some of you keep comparing the characters to previous or established versions.  As I eluded to in a previous post... these characters are not the same characters we knew.  They resemble what we knew in name and function only  The portrayals on the other hand are all unique to these movies with only hints of past interpretations. 

The pacing was good.  Knocking the editing...? come on. Don't be surprised if this movie gets nominated for some honors based on its technical aspects like the editing.   As far as the fight and action scenes go... sure they are dark... sure they are hectic and oft time chaotic............... its the DARK KNIGHT.  Its done on purpose in order to keep an air of mystery and awe keeping everything in the shadows where Batman operates best.. while at the same time getting your adrenaline pumping.  I bet you were glued trying to keep up and see what was going on... ie purposeful intent. Otherwise it would have had a run of the mill car chase scene and the fight scenes would have looked like a bad Jet Li movie......... or even worst it could have been nice and clear and you would have seen a big 'BAMM!' flash up on the screen.  :)[/spoiler]

While the movie wasn't flawless... it still managed to be one of if not the best comic book inspired movies ever.

[BentonGrey]

Well, I almost agree with you there HQ, I think if the flaws were addressed DK would be two of the greatest movies of all time.

[Ajax]

[spoiler]Benton the idea that they should have split the movie into two is ridiculous. Joker's whole plan from the moment he entered the Mob bosses gathering was to destroy Harvey Dent. To split the movie into two would be jarring and would ultimately ruin the story presented in DK. The conclusion to the film would feel half empty as if it were missing something, ie Harvey Dent. All this effort Joker puts into tearing down Dent and then what? Gets his face burned and then he is gone from the movie? How would you untangle Dent from the main plot without destroying the story?[/spoiler]

[BentonGrey]

I think you've misunderstood me Ajax, I don't mean that the two contiguous story arcs should be divorce from one another, but that instead that the film should have had more in common with Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.  So, most of the movie would have been the same, except expanded to make it more complete where it was anemic (the cop drama parts, along with Batman and the mob), Dent is still scarred, the Joker still wages his war of chaos, but we stop where Harvey demands that Gordon call him by his nickname, and we know that he has broken.  Then, the next movie would have had the actual resolution, and a longer story arc with Dent himself.  The Joker's story could even have resolved in DK, allowing Dent to take center stage as he becomes a true dichotomy. 

[stumpy]

I just saw it for a second time tonight with my cousin and his young son. I liked it much more the second time. It went from "I liked it but I would pretty easily recommend Iron Man to someone before DK" to "I liked it a lot and it would be a tough call between IM and DK, depending on the sort of movie the viewer likes". Just a few thoughts after the second viewing:

[spoiler]
I.
Benton, I kind of wish Dent was available for the next Batman movie. But, this movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective if things hadn't come to the resolution they did here. For one thing, the scene where Dent makes Gordon go through the same anguish he did - by promising a loved one that everything would be all right, knowing that he couldn't be sure it would be - would have been tough to recreate in context in the next movie.

Second, the whole power of the ending of this movie is that we (and Bruce, aided by Alfred) come to see that Batman is the incorruptible hero that Bruce wanted Dent to be. Realizing that, Batman can take the heat of being publicly perceived as a villain so that the public can have its inspirational white knight. At the end of this movie, Bruce makes the sacrifice to make Batman the Dark Knight, and we know why and what it means. I don't think that works if Dent lives.

As an aside, I still don't overall buy into the romance between Bruce and Rachel. But, I do appreciate how it plays into constructing the parallel between Wayne and Dent. The Joker (knowingly or not) attempted to corrupt both of them with Dawes death. Even though we had hints before that Dent would cross the line that Batman wouldn't (in Dent's scene with Scarecrow), it was that final push that really crushed Dent and that Batman overcame, even though they both deeply loved Rachel and were anguished by her loss after they both tried to save her. (And, yes, I know Dent had the added scarring to deal with, but that's not my point here.) Anyway I think the movie would have been much weaker without that parallel. Plus, the third movie would have had to flash back too many Rachel scenes and I really am glad that character is done.

II.
The Bruce parts of the movie are too slow for little kids, and many grownups, if my read of the theater was accurate. That's too bad, because that was one of the strong points of Iron Man - it was engaging when he was in costume and it was engaging when he was Stark. In DK, Bruce Wayne came off as a little dry. I'm not sure that's the wrong way to play him, but it does take away from those scenes.

III.
This time I saw the movie in a larger theater with better sound and the abrupt scene cuts, which were still there, were much easier to ignore. Maybe it's just that, knowing they were coming, they were less distracting. Maybe it was the better theater. Either way, they didn't annoy me as much this time through.

IV.
Dent definitely buckled up before shooting Maroni's driver.

V.
Gordon's wife was named Barbara. His daughter, though unnamed, was very young. Maybe eight, tops. She is not Batgirl material.

VI.
I know it's a movie, but I must say that the Joker's speech to Dent where he asks, "Do I seem like a man with a plan?" rang true to me. I mean, when you think it through, the Joker had to have done a lot of very intricate planning and preemptive execution to have everything go off the way it did, and most of it dependent on things that would have been difficult if not impossible to foresee. By the end of the movie, it was straining credibility, a bit.[/spoiler]

[MJB]

[spoiler]VI.
I know it's a movie, but I must say that the Joker's speech to Dent where he asks, "Do I seem like a man with a plan?" rang true to me. I mean, when you think it through, the Joker had to have done a lot of very intricate planning and preemptive execution to have everything go off the way it did, and most of it dependent on things that would have been difficult if not impossible to foresee. By the end of the movie, it was straining credibility, a bit.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I saw things a different way. The Joker HAD a plan. It was quite elaborate and complicated but he did have a plan. His goal was to ruin Harvey Dent. Just like in the Killing Joke, the Joker wanted to prove that anyone can become a monster like him.

While TDK Joker was quite mad he was also a friggin' genius when it came to these plans. Look how he planned to get arrested. He performed surgery on a man to fill him with explosives and a cell phone so he could escape. He was a loony guy but at the same time he had everything planned to a tee. IMHO of course.[/spoiler]

-MJB

[House Quake]

Must agree with MJB there.

[stumpy]

It wasn't a huge deal, but if you think through all the events that had to have worked out a certain way,  they really do strain credulity.
[spoiler]I'm not going to go through them one by one, but basically everything from the arrest at the point when Dent reveals that he is Batman had to be planned in advance, including planting hundred of explosive devices and setting up dozens of hostages; orchestrating a chase scene that nearly got Dent killed several times; having his handful of corrupt cops in the right place at the right time to pick up Dent and Dawes; the plot to pit the public against Bruce's accountant via the hospital bombs; getting his "phone call' guy in the right place, but not having him collapse so soon that he's hauled off to the infirmary before the Joker can call him; etc.; etc.; etc. Keep in mind that, during all of this, he doesn't want Dent (or Batman, really) killed until Dent is shown as having been tarnished and both are nearly killed more than once before that happens.

I mean, there's planning and then there's near precognition...  :lol:[/spoiler]

[TheMarvell]

as a side note, the guy that Harvey intimidates shortly after the attempted hit on the mayor is not Scarecrow, just a guy that looks remarkably like the same actor. Batman says what his name is when he stops Dent, and it's not Jonathan Crane.

[JKCarrier]

Finally got out to see this yesterday. Ledger is amazing, obviously, and pretty much steals the whole movie. Unfortunately, next to him, Bale looks like a complete non-entity. I was interested in Dent, Gordon, even Alfred, but I couldn't care less about that stiff in the rubber suit. Neither his waffling about whether to turn himself in, nor the lame "love triangle" with Gyllenhaal had any dramatic impact whatsoever (And yes, that growly "tough guy" voice he puts on is hilariously dumb. I expected him to start pitching Frosted Flakes halfway through the movie).

I have to agree with Benton about the editing -- I thought the extended car chase worked okay, but most of the scenes of hand-to-hand combat are just gibberish. When they made the joke early on about Batman finally being able to turn his head, I had high hopes, but no... it's the same old quick cuts and deep shadows to hide his lack of mobility. Bleh.

Still, it's a great movie. Smart, suspenseful and action-packed. It's going to be tough for any sequel to live up to.

[Figure Fan]

In case anyone is curious as to the progress of The Dark Knight's domestic blockbuster record, as well as other films, I found this list:

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/blockbusters.htm

I guess it's projected to enter into the top 5, if not higher. :blink:

[stumpy]

as a side note, the guy that Harvey intimidates shortly after the attempted hit on the mayor is not Scarecrow, just a guy that looks remarkably like the same actor. Batman says what his name is when he stops Dent, and it's not Jonathan Crane.

Thanks. I was wondering why the name didn't sound familiar, but Batman's description of the guy as an Arkham inmate and so on threw me.

[Ajax]

It wasn't a huge deal, but if you think through all the events that had to have worked out a certain way,  they really do strain credulity.
[spoiler]I'm not going to go through them one by one, but basically everything from the arrest at the point when Dent reveals that he is Batman had to be planned in advance, including planting hundred of explosive devices and setting up dozens of hostages; orchestrating a chase scene that nearly got Dent killed several times; having his handful of corrupt cops in the right place at the right time to pick up Dent and Dawes; the plot to pit the public against Bruce's accountant via the hospital bombs; getting his "phone call' guy in the right place, but not having him collapse so soon that he's hauled off to the infirmary before the Joker can call him; etc.; etc.; etc. Keep in mind that, during all of this, he doesn't want Dent (or Batman, really) killed until Dent is shown as having been tarnished and both are nearly killed more than once before that happens.

I mean, there's planning and then there's near precognition...  :lol:[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I think there was a plan and the whole Harvey Dent revealing himself as Batman was part of it. Since he said it himself, he thought Harvey was Batman (After he saw Bats jump out the window to save Rachael without hesitation). Batman showing up and saving Harvey was the kink in that plan. Not saying he planned every detail but there was definitely a plan there. How detailed nobody will ever know.[/spoiler]

By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P

[kkhohoho]

By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P

All Rachel's been good for so far up to this point has been A) being a love interest which wasn't actually a good thing, and B) being the catalyst for Harvey's psychological descent into Two-Face.  Actually, she was only good for B.

[bredon7777]

By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P

I liked Rachel fine. . .once she was played by a competent actress.

[stumpy]

[spoiler]

I think there was a plan and the whole Harvey Dent revealing himself as Batman was part of it. Since he said it himself, he thought Harvey was Batman (After he saw Bats jump out the window to save Rachael without hesitation). Batman showing up and saving Harvey was the kink in that plan. Not saying he planned every detail but there was definitely a plan there. How detailed nobody will ever know.

He said he almost believed Dent was Batman. And, the Joker thought Dent and Batman weren't the same before Batman saved Dent in the warehouse. He had to have gotten some sort of clue either when Batman joined the chase as Harvey was being transported or at least when Batman showed up in his interrogation room for their little chat.[/spoiler]

By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P

I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.

[steamteck]

[

I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.

Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.

[BentonGrey]

[

I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.

Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.

Bah, what did she do?  She acted as a springboard for his moral dilemma, and was disappointed in him when he wanted to take the law into his own hand and when he was playing the playboy part.  Harvey Dent could have done the same thing and been a lot more useful while he was at it.  We could have developed the Dent/Wayne friendship, touched upon Harvey's anger issues (I can just imagine the discovery of the gun scene between Wayne and Harvey, the D.A. torn because he can understand Bruce's desire to take the law into his own hands, but also infuriated by his friend's lack of faith in the system he is fighting for).

[TheMarvell]

if they didn't have Rachel, then the movie would be completely void of any female character, which I could see a lot of people not liking.

Besides, I think she humanizes Bruce in a way that couldn't be done if she was never in the story. She's not the greatest or most interesting character, that's for sure, but I think in this new series she served her purpose and did add to the story, specifically in Dark Knight more than Batman Begins for reasons already stated.

I also completely disagree in the idea that this movie should have been two movies. The backbone of the story in TDK is Two-Face, while Joker is merely the cipher. Think about it: Joker is the same character he was at the beginning of the movie that he was at the ending, but Two-Face was not. Without closure on his end, we'd be left with a cliffhanger of sorts. Also, I'm sick of several movies deciding to go with the "let's film parts 2 and 3 at the same time and leave part 2 off with a cliffhanger ending so we can go further in part 3." I hate that, because it really makes part 2 seem like ONLY a set-up for part 3 and not it's own chapter. There are, of course, exceptions, but that's been a huge trend in hollywood.

Lastly, I really don't think people hailing this movie shows anything about "how our society has become susceptible to hype" or anything like that. This is one of the few movies I believe not only lived up to its hype, but exceeded it. In the end it's just a movie. Just because the vast majority of people love it and you might not doesn't mean there's some sort of problem...

[steamteck]

[

I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.

Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.

Bah, what did she do?  She acted as a springboard for his moral dilemma, and was disappointed in him when he wanted to take the law into his own hand and when he was playing the playboy part.  Harvey Dent could have done the same thing and been a lot more useful while he was at it.  We could have developed the Dent/Wayne friendship, touched upon Harvey's anger issues (I can just imagine the discovery of the gun scene between Wayne and Harvey, the D.A. torn because he can understand Bruce's desire to take the law into his own hands, but also infuriated by his friend's lack of faith in the system he is fighting for).

Personally I would have only found that effective if they had established Harvey as his friend from childhood like Rachel was. Something about the male/female dynamic still makes me think Rachel was a better choice although Harvey's fall would have had even more impact  your way.

[danhagen]

I only wish that the character of Rachel Dawes had been called Julie Madison, playboy Bruce Wayne's first girlfriend in the comics. It would have pleased fanboys like me without sacrificing a thing, since Julie Madison never actually had a personality and vanished quickly enough anyway.

[steamteck]

OK, I said I'd shut up about the Joker etc. until I saw the the movie and I finally got the wife to agree. She loved the first one and hated the previews so didn't want to mar her vision so to speak.
I found it very well done and not as dark as I feared. I enjoyed many of its moments very good acting  and pretty solid plot

I'll be the odd man out and say I liked Katie Holmes better and I dislike Katie Holmes! I swear I could see the new girl consciously acting. Didn't work for me.

I'm glad there was lots more than just the Joker going on because while I liked him at points I didn't love him and most of the big plot holes centered around making his schemes work. Let's just say  If anyone believes no one checked those ferries for bombs for example , I've got some bridges to sell them.

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
In general people's sacrifices didn't seem to be appreciated or even upheld enough. I'll give a B+. Not iron Man but pretty good.

[Podmark]

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.

Isn't Harvey kind of dead?

[Figure Fan]

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.

Isn't Harvey kind of dead?

Yeah, I think he's dead. I don't see him being of much use in the next movie, anyways. If anything, they could manage to explain his being alive and use him as a cameo villain much like Scarecrow in TDK. *shrugs*

[steamteck]

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.

Isn't Harvey kind of dead?

I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?

[kkhohoho]

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.

Isn't Harvey kind of dead?

I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?

I don't know, but if he is, he could always play a different character, or still play Harvey Dent, but only in flashbacks.

[BWPS]

I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.

Isn't Harvey kind of dead?

I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?

I don't know, but if he is, he could always play a different character, or still play Harvey Dent, but only in flashbacks.

A different character? That'd be ridiculous and confusing.

And I don't see how he can be alive. Bats and Gordon should both be able to tell when someone is breathing, and I'd imagine they wouldn't just leave his body there. But I'm no good at making movies so I really need to shut up about stuff.

[steamteck]

A different character? That'd be ridiculous and confusing.

And I don't see how he can be alive. Bats and Gordon should both be able to tell when someone is breathing, and I'd imagine they wouldn't just leave his body there. But I'm no good at making movies so I really need to shut up about stuff.

I hope so. I can find a couple of web reviews that claim he's signed for a 2nd one but hopefully untrue rumors. I still didn't like Batman being hunted and If there is a next movie  it really needs to be resolved in that movie

[stumpy]

[spoiler]And, if Dent's still alive, and still crazy, then it undercuts the whole rationale as to why Batman chose to take the heat for those Dent killed. Batman allowed the public to think he did those things in order that Dent could be remembered as an inspirational hero. That doesn't really work if Dent is still alive and executing his particular brand of justice.[/spoiler]

[Podmark]

[spoiler]The only way I could see Dent still being alive (which now that I think of it they never said he was actually dead) is if they locked him away somewhere and either told everyone he was dead, or was away recovering from the events of the film/went crazy because of the understandable trauma. That still has Batman taking the rap and Harvey's rep as a hero is still maintained, still tragically cut short.

There's no way he's out there running around killing people, it just wouldn't make any sense with the ending. [/spoiler]