IMDb > The Dark Knight (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Dark Knight
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Dark Knight More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 475: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 4747 reviews in total 

172 out of 335 people found the following review useful:

Best film ever? You must be batty!

Author: Doctor_Mongoose from United Kingdom
1 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Obviously Christopher Nolan was trying to touch on one of the prominent issues of recent times. That of the environment. He did this by recycling tired old jokes and set pieces from many action films before, and the rest of the plot was salvaged from toilets and rubbish bins. He also comes up with the perfect formula to make a profound sentence, by taking two words that mean complete opposites and shoving them together.

Joking aside, after almost nodding off for the first hour and a half the second half of the movie actually was pretty good, albeit drawn out until the ending which was very frustrating. They literally left the joker hanging while dealing with the completely pointless and irrational side-story of two-face. I'd have thought that a man of dent's resolve would have been made stronger by the events that took place, to get back at the joker and stop such events from happening to other people, instead of deteriorating into the monster of similar calibre to the joker.

I really don't think the film got the best out of the actors involved, probably due to the script. Christian Bale is a fantastic actor, but he is completely wasted as batman where he spends most of his time jumping about in a bat-suit using a silly voice, instead of displaying his incredible character acting skills in movies such as American Psycho and the Machinist. Heath Ledger's performance was the only real solid one in the entire cast, however at plenty of times he guilty of completely over-acting. His introduction to the members of the mob was farcical and the laughter in the cinemas was due to the awkwardness and stupidity of the situation.

The main reason I think the film totally fails is Christopher Nolans approach of trying to make the film really realistic with an explanation for everything. A man running around in a bat costume and a man dressed up in clown make-up is just to surreal to try and be addressed in this manner. This is why I think the original Batman is a lot better because it didn't try to be ultra-realistic and took the comics and had a fairly serious tone with a very comedic undercurrent. Christopher Nolan undoubtedly has talent as a director, memento, the prestige and even insomnia are all great films but I feel his attempts at the batman franchise are far outshone by Tim Burton.

Obviously the film is already a hit and there is nothing anyone can write to stop it from being so, however I must implore you to actually watch the film critically and realise its shortcomings, than get swept away in the hype.

Was the above review useful to you?

206 out of 403 people found the following review useful:

Let's be realistic.

Author: Faena from Syracuse, NY, USA
22 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I settled on a 5/10 for The Dark Knight. I appreciated the story structure and all the notes they hit... I just don't think they played them loudly. I don't like re-casting, and the replacement of Katie Holmes/Rachel and the original Barbara Gordon actress (yes, her too, didya notice?) is awkward and distracting. The lack of ANY blood in the film to complement the multitude of beatings and killings (to sustain a PG-13 rating) nullifies the tension that should be present in some brilliantly conceived scenarios. I didn't believe for a second that the victims of several hostage situations (mass or otherwise) would actually lose their lives, because it's blisteringly apparent from the onset that this film is a PG-13, and would never disturb its audience beyond the minimum necessary plot points.

The Joker is actually underwritten. Ledger was game and his performance solid, but honestly: Throw the makeup and stringy hair on 75% of capable actors out there, and you have the same product. I think Jack Nicholson's output is ultimately more interesting, and I think that Tim Burton's original film, although imperfect, is still the most entertaining in the pantheon.

I realize that to hardcore Batman fans, this is a wet dream having the grittiness of the graphic novels transposed to the big screen (if they say so; I say it came close), but riddle me this: If the same script was fashioned into a non-superhero flick, let's say Heat II, and had the same strong performances and production values, would the lack of Batman fan loyalty still rocket it to its current position on the IMDb Top 250?

Was the above review useful to you?

240 out of 471 people found the following review useful:

The film that seems to have fooled everyone!

Author: rich-kemp from United Kingdom
31 July 2008

OK, lets get it out of the way, I'm a massive Batman fan. I loved the TV show when I was a kid, really enjoyed the early Tim Burton films and have even worn the costume on a few occasions. I've even taken the time to read Batman comics and graphic novels. I thought Christian Bale was an excellent choice of the lead role for the new films and thought the first one was a great start and I was really looking forward to this one. So how come I've just walked out of the cinema feeling very disappointed? Why? Because this film just wasn't that good. It's far too long, has very little fun in it and takes itself so seriously it's painful. The makers have thrown the kitchen sink at it with very little thought. The whole thing was one great, big, dreadful, noisy, mess. The only good thing in it is Heath Ledger's performance. I had my doubts when I first heard who'd they'd cast but I gotta hand it to Heath, he pulled it off. No thanks to the film however, which is so over cooked it's burnt. Sure there's loads of action, cool bat gadgets and lots of running about and shouting but absolutely no soul. It was great looking but has no personality. I felt neither happy, scared or even mildly concerned let alone entertained. I really didn't give a damn. So next time people, slim it down, less is more. It's not Apocalypse Now, put some fun into it.....Why so serious?

Was the above review useful to you?

68 out of 128 people found the following review useful:

Not the greatest film ever made

Author: John Seal from Oakland CA
19 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Time for a corrective. As I write this review, The Dark Knight is, according to IMDb voters, the Best. Film. Ever. At the risk of incurring a hail of brickbats, I must demur. Yes, Heath Ledger delivers an excellent performance, as does Gary Oldman as Lieutenant--er, COMMISSIONER Gordon--and it's always a pleasure to watch Michael Caine and Aaron Eckhart. But The Dark Knight is an overlong, over plotted, logically flawed, and philosophically confused film that cannot (and should not) be mistaken for great art. Compared to most comic book movies, it's not bad. Compared to La Regle du Jeu, it ain't so hot. The film's first half is actually quite good, and seems to come to a timely conclusion somewhere around the eighty minute mark. Unfortunately, this being a summer blockbuster, there's another 70 plus minutes to go, and the film's second half is a distinct letdown. Instead of ending on a neat and tidy note, The Dark Knight spirals off into a muddled mess of bizarre plotting (how DID that prisoner get the bomb sewn into him?), illogic (how does Harvey escape the hospital explosion--and why is he apparently impervious to pain?) and confusing action (too many ass-kickings in too little time). I don't expect 100% logical consistency from my genre product, but there are so many flaws and elisions of simple common sense in Christopher Nolan's screenplay that utter frustration sets in around the two-hour mark. By the end of the film, we're expected to believe that, for some reason, the residents of Gotham now need to revile Batman rather than reward him for his good work, setting up a police pursuit into the sunset that presumably will end with our hero receiving a ticket for speeding on the Batcycle. So let's tell it like it is: in terms of 2008 comic book flicks, The Dark Knight is inferior to both Hellboy II (which at least is charming and amusing) and Hancock (which raises far more interesting questions about the nature of the super hero).

Was the above review useful to you?

82 out of 156 people found the following review useful:

TDK, a solid superhero movie, nothing more

Author: apfelkornmetijs from Netherlands
25 July 2008

After reading quite a few reviews from the states i was very curious about this movie. As a kid i loved to read superhero comic books, spiderman and batman were my favourites. Loving the spiderman movies and also liking the first new Batman movie by Nolan and wanting to see the last performance by Heath Ledger i couldn't wait to see this movie.

Man was i disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, i liked the movie, i had fun with it and the performance bij Heath Ledger is something i will never forget. I was sceptical about him because people tend to exaggerate performances of popular dead actors but i must honestly admit, he blew me away. He also blew every actor away he shared screen time with, i liked gary oldman best together with him in a scene. I am still wowed by Hedgers performance, and i must admit i really feel frustrated that he is gone, this performance MUST get an Oscar.

Caine was very good, Bale was OK although i don't like him as batman, he is a good Bruce Wayne but not a good batman and i really enjoyed Aaron Eckart as Harvey Dent.

But i thought the movie also had quite a few flaws.

Without giving away too much i really though most of the combat action scenes were not easily watchable because they were to fast to follow, I really didn't like the way they went with two face, and the ending sequence with the bat and the joker to me was a let down. Also i don't like the way Nolan tells the story but i must admit, thats a personal opinion.

There were 2 surprising moments that i really loved, one containing a pencil which got me laughing very hard and the other the choice sequence which ended in a way i didn't see coming but loved it.

All in all, an OK superhero movie, 7 stars but 9? come on people, that's crazy.

It's unbelievable that movies like the matrix 1 , gladiator, as good as it gets, l.a. confidential, eternal sunshine and the spotless mind don't rank as high as this movie, i cant understand it although i respect it.

Happy to share my feel about this movie,


Was the above review useful to you?

359 out of 710 people found the following review useful:

Too many fans seem to be blown away

Author: SimonJack from United States
31 July 2008

Many commenters said they were "blown away," so it probably has succeeded in blowing away the box office. I waited until the second week, and had high expectations from the 9 and 10 ratings it was receiving. But, fellow movie/film viewers (and especially great film lovers) ... really!? There's no doubt about the action and action and action in this one, and thus, the special effects. That's the main reason I enjoy such fantasy flicks -- the comic book genre. So, this one does more of it and perhaps better than the last Batman and the last Spiderman and the last super heroes (but I would not rank it up with Iron Man). So, special effects and makeup may earn it awards.

Maybe I'm beginning to burn out on all the action and special effects of movies, though. Or perhaps I need more from a movie. With 45 minutes to go, I was ready for it to end. It was way too long. Some reviewers thought the acting was superb. What acting -- do they mean the one- or two-minute interludes between the fast and furious segments of action and destruction? I'm not down on any of the actors for their roles or parts -- but where were there any parts of substance in acting? True, Heath Ledger does a very good Joker. But, then, who hasn't (Nicholson, et al) who have ever played those roles in Batman, Superman, etc? As for plot -- well, anyone who knows the genre and a story that combines Batman with the Joker, knows to expect the unexpected with the Joker. So, the plot goes from one unexpected to another -- as though the variety and mixture and change in "unexpecteds" is trying to outdo the action mayhem.

When I saw that this stands as #1 in the top 250 right now, I clicked on the list. But how this movie for acting and plot (and yes, even action in many cases) could rank up there with the likes of the Lord of the Rings, the Star Wars films, and many great classics with real suspense (I have to mention Casablanca, Vertigo, North by Northwest), is beyond me. I'm not that far off with the overall trends in the IMDb reviews, but can't agree with so many who rate this film at the top.

It's good and entertaining -- but too long. It's not great, by any means. I love the youth of today (I have a few grandchildren), and I don't mean to disparage them by this observation -- but I think this high acclaim by many for this film may reflect a very large, very young audience, most members of whom don't have a great deal of quality and varied films in their viewing history. To all of those young people, I urge a look at the top 250 list or other major review ratings -- and then that you rent, borrow or otherwise watch some of the other great films. I promise you won't be disappointed or bored --and you may get an understanding (maybe appreciation for) of some past customs, life styles, dress, behaviors, etc. To be sure, you will have great entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

73 out of 139 people found the following review useful:

Heath Ledger is a ledgend!

Author: rustyalex2 from Australia
16 July 2008

Well here it is, one of the most anticipated movies of the year so far. How was it? It was excellent. By far the best Batman film ever made and of course it will be one of the most memorable action films for a long while.

Everyone was waiting to see how well Heath Ledger performed as The Joker in this film. He definitely deserves an Oscar in his honor. The character was so dark and creepy that it sent chills up my back. Compared to Heath's other films like '10 Things I Hate About You' and even 'Brokeback Mountain' proves that this man could actually act, doesn't matter what character, he could do it.

The film's storyline has many twists and all are rewarding, the story is developed constantly after each scene, making you wonder what's next. Excellent craft and flows well towards the conclusion.

During the film on the scene with Batman against the Joker, Bike vs Truck. People thought this was the ending. No, it kept going which was awesome, the story kept getting darker and darker, I guess that's why they called it the 'Dark' Knight as well as the relation to Batman himself.

The cast was great. With Christopher Nolan playing Batman, good performance, Heath Ledger played extremely well, Maggie was annoying at times, but still deserves to be praised. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman had minor roles which satisfied the audiences. Aaron Eckhart starts with a minor role which slowly progresses and becomes evil which is quite surprising and entertaining to watch.

Great directing made the movie enjoyable, they added more action this time which made the film feel powerful, lighting was done well especially showing Harvey/ Two Face's face in the many moods he displayed.

Great explosions made it entertaining. Made you feel great that this is finally the best action to come in a long time.

This movie deserves a 10/10 rating and credit on behalf of the great young actor Heath Ledger's life. (May he R.I.P) His performance made what this film is right now.

I recommend this film for any action fan, especially a Batman fan. Or if your even a Heath Ledger fan. Go ahead right now and see this film. It's great!

Was the above review useful to you?

163 out of 319 people found the following review useful:

Bold without ever being especially great, and which progressively gets less-interesting; the film is a wild concoction of ideas that just about treads water.

Author: johnnyboyz from Hampshire, England
25 July 2008

Some of the very first words Christian Bale utters as the eponymous role of 'soon-to-be-Batman' Bruce Wayne, in the preceding Batman film to this entitled Batman Begins, are to a thug in a remote prison located in the Far East: "you're not The Devil, you're practise" he hisses. The feeling's that 2008's The Dark Knight is where the practise ends and the fight with The Devil begins. This is my second crack at writing something up about the film, and while what I said initially was a little unfocused and targeted the wrong areas; I stand by the initial grade I gave it and similarly retained that similar sense of feeling underwhelmed when it finished. Even if it is deemed that The Dark Knight is one of the better comic book adaptations ever made, this is not saying a terrible lot given the bulk of entries in said film canon.

That old problem of dealing with the war genre and doing one's very best to document war as a horrid, gut-wrenching thing whilst maintaining sequences of war that cannot help but carry a sense of spectacle anyway, rears its head here. The Dark Knight documents a war on terrorism and sees Christohper Nolan attempt to echo a greater sense of things in the real world as he unleashes a character known as The Joker (Ledger) amongst the inhabitants of Gotham City, The results of his terrorist 'acts' in bringing down entire buildings allow Nolan to shoot the wreckage of said act with firefighters in the foreground and smoking rubble in the back, clearly calling on immediate 'post' imagery of the 9/11 New York attacks. Incidentally, and as one source which escapes me suggested, Joker's videos of captives held and forced to talk into video cameras evoke the actions of overseas terrorist cells, and their own methods of getting the message across to The West; while most of his scenes in which he is seen pottering around an area trying to intimidate carry an odd, distorted and erratic hand held aesthetic suggesting danger, distortion and chaos. Later on, semiology linked to fire fighting will be used again in the briefest of fashions, when a certain character, who's under threat from The Joker, is being transported in a police van: a burning fire truck is used as a blockade, and Nolan cleverly instills a further sense of victimised anguish into the audience.

In addition to biting all of this off, Nolan does his best to render the film a gangster film-come-neo noir whilst operating under this banner of a low MPAA/BBFC rating as the film additionally attempts to draw on parallels between The Joker, Batman and a third piece to the triangle in district attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart). Indeed the film opens with an audacious robbery of mob money, as perpetrated by The Joker; his menace established by the fact his cohorts contribute varying perspectives of the man whilst we perceive him to still be off screen. The robbery itself carries a clever twist in that each member kills the other when his job is done, a small but highly affecting twinge to proceedings as dreamt up by The Joker thus cementing his personality and mindset in being able to cook up something such as this. As a fighter of crime, Dent lacks the physical strength Batman does but talks a good talk and is able to place a number of criminals in jail after some hard work as he adopts his own stance on the front line of crime. Shortly afterwards, it is Gary Oldman's police lieutenant Jim Gordon whom refers to him as Gotham's "white knight", suggesting the man shares a similar overview to Batman's "dark" but is just different in technique and characteristics.

Joker's parallel with Batman sees the film establish such a relationship by way of two accompanying scenes, one seeing The Joker and a handful of representatives from Gotham's gangs occupy a kitchen and talk of certain issues. Annoyingly, the representatives are your more generic bling-wielding African-Americans; well dressed Italian American mobsters and gruff, greasy haired eastern European criminals. Cut to Gordon, Batman and Dent beside the bat signal doing the exact same thing but whose discussions and ideologies obviously differ; a later pairing of sequences seeing The Joker deal with a black criminal, whom he feels ought to be working with him, in a blunt fashion just as Batman does the same to a Chinese businessman named Lau whom he feels similarly towards in this sense, thus suggesting a more intrinsic link between the two. As is the rule of thumb in films such as Heat or American Gangster, Joker and Batman share a sequence in which they sit opposite one another at a table; on this occasion, and as other sources have stated, right before contemporary issues on the treatment of terrorists once in custody have arisen.

Where the film falls apart is its want to cater to an audience with superhero sub-genre frills, an interesting parallel drawn up between Dent as a frothing at the mouth monster named Two-Face seeking revenge and Batman, as two people differently channelling anger born out of injustices towards people they love plays out, but getting bogged down with out of sorts fight scenes and ridiculous sequences in 'sonar vision' which does nothing but juvenalise adult content. Most of the second unit stuff is nowhere near as interesting as the talk and studious observations on identity and personality; a chase through a tunnel which spills onto the streets involving a police van; a large truck and a bat-bike rather underwhelming. The film relies on rife corruption all too often to further its narrative so as to send it down another avenue of twists and turns, ultimately a story which is not as interesting as all the aforementioned character studies and power play going on as binary opposites supposedly attract and everybody's linked to each other. Ultimately only fleetingly interesting, and all too often feels bogged down.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

not as good as all the hype

Author: MLDinTN from TN
16 June 2009

I really wanted to see this in the theater;however, I never did last summer. Instead I waited till it came on cable, and after watching it; I really didn't miss anything by not going to the theater. I was rather disappointed because I was expecting this to be as good as Spiderman, but I don't think it was. I thought it was rather slow moving with sparse action scenes. I mean Batman on the chopper really wasn't that much action. A lot of films have had better car chasing scenes then that.

And I really didn't think Heath Ledger was anything special in this. His role was just a lot of hype. Probably the best role was by Aaron Eckhart and the special effects with his face at the end.

I also have to comment on Christian Bale's Batman voice. What was he trying to do?? He sounded like a chronic smoker with emphysema.

FINAL VERDICT: It was good, just not as good as advertised. I don't get why so many people thought it was the best comic book movie to be made.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Is it really one of the top 10?

Author: clangfield from London, England
5 April 2009

There seems to be a lot of hype about this film. As I write it's sitting at #6 with an average rating of 9.0. Honestly, I don't think it's that good. Heath Ledger is fun as the psychopathic side of the joker, but I'm not sure he's any more enjoyable than Jack Nicholson - where, for instance, are the actual jokes? Michael Caine just is NOT Alfred - butlers should speak much more correctly than that, and the cockney boy just doesn't work for me. Christian Bale doesn't seem solid enough as a Bruce Wayne. It's a bit more jolly than the Tim Burton efforts - there is at least daylight this time - and the plot twists and effects are decent, but I don't think they're particularly ground-breaking. All in all I'd say it's watchable, but I don't expect it to hang around in the top 10 for too long.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 475: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history