IMDb > The Dark Knight (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Dark Knight
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Dark Knight More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 396: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 3951 reviews in total 

339 out of 654 people found the following review useful:

Erm...really? (may be a couple of spoilers)

1/10
Author: planetsurreal from United Kingdom
26 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow. Once again my faith in the rational persons ability to discriminate between depth and breadth, is verified, in that I have none.

The film was long. Not deep. I think there is a misunderstanding. The film had the veneer of an epic film. It had all the right elements to be an epic comic-book adaptation to screen. Yet it faltered, mainly because everyone was so wrapped up in the idea of Ledger giving a career defining performance, they couldn't see past it. It's almost as if they accepted the brilliance of his performance before they entered the theatre, off of the back of the hype and the critics reviews, and all that was left was to actually watch it and be able to validate this belief.

Disregarding Heath Ledgers untimely death, can you really say that he was a better Joker than Jack Nicholsons? I for one, cannot. Others have already said it; he had no back story. A character without a past and a motive - especially when they are a killer - is just not one that is appropriate to a story about good and evil. The things we like about villains is that we can relate to the reasons they do the things they do, whilst asking ourselves whether their reasons are justified. We get into a dialogue, and we ourselves get to decide who we side with - the good or the bad. This villain left me feeling flat and unfulfilled because he had no real motive, - making it impossible to choose which argument, good or bad, I sided with - and left me feeling like I was a voyeur, watching a guy kill loads of people.

Everyone has been raving about the script, which I thought was plain dreadful at points. Others have raised the questions here. What was with his voice? He would make a great nursery nurse. The poignant moment on the boat when the sailor said something to the effect of "They haven't pushed the button yet, because we are still alive" was just plain embarrassing. The fact that Batman kept leaving in the middle of a conversation became irritating instead of cool and enigmatic. Why can't he just hear someone out. And at the end when batman runs home like Charlie, I was nearly dying in laughter. I could hear the music 'I've got a golden ticket'. There were other embarrassing script moments, but because the film was so bad, I can't even be bothered to mention them. The phone device for one was utter...

The rhetoric of the characters in their oratorical moments was again, limp. It was as if the writer had started a sadistic, flowing evil speech, but had not had the tools with which to really elaborate. Because he had decided to keep the Jokers background exclusive, the speeches were neither funny or scary. They were punctured and lacked conviction.

The fact that this is the number one movie is embarrassing. IMDb should take it off out of principle. If this wins an Oscar, I will never watch a Hollywood movie again.

Was the above review useful to you?

125 out of 232 people found the following review useful:

Why so happy? Let's put a frown on that face!

1/10
Author: blackaugust79 from United States
29 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I know this review will get a bunch of unhelpful votes but somebody has to tell the truth here! The Dark Knight is wildly overrated and is the most overrated movie of all time. Forget Titanic, Boondock Saints and King Kong(2005). This movie surpasses them when it comes to sheer hype. For the record I love Batman Begins. I thought it was a fresh beginning on a series that was rendered ineffective by that lunatic Joel Schumacher. Christian Bale fared well as both Batman and Bruce Wayne and the rest of the cast did a great job also. But this movie.... Everything that made Batman Begins so great is absent from this pretentious slop. Most of the cast look like they'd rather be somewhere else. Let me break it down this way with what stinks about this movie.

The plot: Idiotic beyond belief. Joker(Heath Ledger) plans to kill city officials while playing childish games with Batman. Most of the time he's killing the people he's aligned with making him the most moronic villain in superhero movie history. Batman joins forces with Commissioner Gordon to stop him.

The acting: Christian Bale is wooden in both roles(Batman and Bruce Wayne). He spends most of the movie looking like he's stoned out of his mind. And what is up with that voice? In Batman Begins he sounded cool like one of the gangsters from those old 1940s flicks. Here he sounds like Dirty Harry with strep throat. Aaron Eckhart is flat as both Harvey Dent and Two-Face. While his Two-Face was better than Tommy Lee's Two-Face looking good by default is never good. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman sleepwalk through this whole movie. Maggie Gyllenhaal is quite awful as Rachel Dawes. Katie Holme's Rachel Dawes was a strong willed lawyer that fought for what's right. Maggie's Rachel Dawes needs to grow up and find some better priorities. I agree that she is a step up from Katie Holmes but she plays Rachel Dawes like some silly high school girl with a pathetic crush on Bruce Wayne. The fact that we are asked to feel sympathy for her when The Joker captures her is a bit of a stretch. Her getting roasted made my day though lol!

Now for the talk of the town: Heath Ledger as Joker. Heath Ledger's performance was okay but to say that he was better than Jack Nicholson's Joker is hilarious to say the least. Jack Nicholson's Joker had style, a plan and was pretty funny as well as unpredictable. Of course he was silly but he was fun. Heath Ledger's Joker is predictable with no back story and had no real plan. Just random acts of chaos. Ra's Al Ghul had a plan, The Joker of Batman 1989 had a plan, The Penguin of Batman Returns had a plan. This weirdo had nothing but bluff. Plus he's has no fun with what he does and spends most of the time ridiculously philosophizing like those corny emo-goth kids that smoke copious amounts of cigarettes while yapping about the misery of their lives. You complete me? That's about as cheesy as the Tumbler turning into a crappy motorcycle. Speaking of Emo-Goth kids that exactly what this Joker is. Only people actually find him cool instead of pathetic.

Action sequences: predictable to a fault. Car chase and fights scenes plus they are quite unrealistic. People get punched, kicked, shot, bitten by dogs and knocked around by explosions and walk away without bumps, bruises, cuts or blood. Now, Im not a gore hound but if you get shot or bitten by a dog, I would expect to see some blood. Not in the Dark Knight though.

Pacing: The movie builds up a pace to slow it down after wards and with all the action on the screen the movie still finds time to be boring. Plus at 2 hours and 32 minutes this movie feels longer than it needs to be. Various subplots that never connect best describe most of this movie.

Conclusion: The Dark Knight is the most overrated, most hypocritical, most pretentious piece of garbage in the history of cinema. The only people that would like this are the fanboys and I cant believe that people are trouncing Tim Burton's Batman movies to foam at the mouth like rabid dog groupies over this overcooked sequel. You pseudo-intellectual snobs don't seem to realize that those movies were great for the time they were made in and they were fun. Tim Burton made the type of Batman movie he wanted to make without trying to please these shills. I must have seen the Tim Burton Batman movies more times than I can count and still have a ball watching them till this day. I saw this dreck three times and still couldn't get into it. Its not even fun. Its a plodding mess that gets more hype than it deserves. Matter of fact, I'll tell how much I didn't like it. For months I had The Dark Knight on my computer for free via z-share and when my computer suffered from a virus that force me to erase the whole thing, this was the only movie through z-share that I never tried to get back. That should tell you everything you need to know about my feelings on this movie. Two Thumbs down.

Was the above review useful to you?

174 out of 338 people found the following review useful:

I didn't like it! Oh! Heaven for offend!!!

1/10
Author: ddfcmp8 from midwest
15 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There is nothing special about this movie. Period. Nothiing special. It tries on so many levels to be this big mega movie, and in financial terms, it was, but you know what? It's still not good, no matter how many fans it has, no matter how much money it pulls in. Those are just figures and numbers, and they're quite boring in the long run. Let's go over a few reasons why it was not good. First off, the story bites off way more than is necessary. We have Bruce Wayne in this ridiculous attempt to win back a woman he'll never have the chance to be with. The woman he is in love with prances around like a little school girl, and really has no business being in the story to begin with. She is just there to make both Batman and Harvey Dent rival each other. I'm so sure that the writers could have come up with a better plan to pit the two against each other than that. Then, there's the Joker...the most ridiculous part of the story. Ridiculous because of the lengths and the means that the filmmakers took to bring a new kind of villain. It's not entertaining, it's not disturbing, it's just sick. This movie was not fun. It was not entertaining. It was a product for the mindless audiences who were going to buy into it anyway, and especially because of the death of Heath edger. Let's talk a little about that. This film had success that rode the curtail of Ledgers death. The studio deliberately used the poor suffering of a human being to push a film into exhibition. That's really sad, and you know what else? It's all this film will ever be...the last film of Heath Ledger, and America went to see it because he died before it's release. sad. Really sad. I didn't like it, and I bet others will not like me for that very reason. Even more sad still.

Was the above review useful to you?

330 out of 650 people found the following review useful:

great but doesn't deserve to be compared with masterpieces

7/10
Author: rodigon7 from United States
19 July 2008

Christopeher Nolan is a talented director. With batman begins,he created such a fantastic atmosphere that he brought batman character back in game. With the dark knight, he made not only a great second sequel, but also one of the best movies of the past 10 years. He mixed action, heroism, feeling, literature, colors so well that you feel kind of high when the movie ends. There is no doubt about it.

But i see some people who don't mind to compare this movie with some old masterpieces and say the dark knight is the best movie so far.Haha, this is completely unacceptable.

Let me clear this: If a movie can bring freshness to creativity, If a movie happens to change your insights, If a movie starts a new genre, gives away new techniques and styles, If a movie makes you understand your heart better; then I call that movie a masterpiece. As far as I see, The Dark Knight is far from it.

But I still feel like I have to congratulate Christopher Nolan for making such a good film. Thanks...

Was the above review useful to you?

96 out of 183 people found the following review useful:

Are you people paid for rating this non-event a tener?

1/10
Author: Balazs Csaszar (balazscsaszar@yahoo.com) from Hungary
2 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the biggest ridicule after George W. not being able to spell the word 'nuclear' right. It is simply beyond my understanding how hundreds of thousands of people could have rated this film even worthy of attention. Batman, The Dark Knight is a piece of cake. With capital letters.

OK, a huge fat turkey of a movie is not a new kid on the block. But no piece of trash has ever been so over-rated as this one is. I know that Heath Ledger's death came unexpected, and the guy was a solid actor, but you cannot praise something to the skies out of commiseration and loyalty. 'Cause however hard I am trying I am not able to find any other substantial reason why you would give Christopher Nolan's new embarrassment of an action flick six, seven, eight or nine points, let alone ten.

This movie is lacking a consequent plot, a cohesion of the myriad of action scenes it has been broken down into and a common sense to know when enough is enough. Besides, I really don't know which film those who said the acting was brilliant had watched, but what I see is that Christian Bale, Maggie Gyllenhal and Gary Oldman all lack conviction and had the end of the day - and probably the collection of money - in mind when they stood in position in front of the blue screen. Oh, and quite often I really got confused; from time to time I needed to be reminded I was not watching the new James Bond movie or Terminator CXXXVIII (the gadget scene, the plane escape scene are truly pathetic, as is the concept of (re)introducing the character of Two-Face, the guy who did not read the instructions manual of the microwave oven).

Since we are talking about a comic book adaptation I don't bother to mention how unrealistic action sequences are (try wiring a town hospital with all that security and CCTV cameras they got installed, or try buying - unnoticed - the oil reserves of a medium sized country to blow half of the city into the sky), but let me ask why nobody out of the immense crew that put this film together could pay attention to small details. Like when police forces storm the Hong Kong building to catch the bat-suit guy: 'Arigato, arigato!'- they wave each other up the stairs. Does this mean China needs to hire law enforcement personnel from Japan? OK, I am stopping there. I know I might already have made some enemies among comic book and action film lovers. This forgettable encounter with Batman however, reminds me again I am not one of them.

Was the above review useful to you?

142 out of 275 people found the following review useful:

Too much of everything

1/10
Author: dianemarie123 (dbockrath@att.net) from Illinois
3 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There were just too many subplots, too much violence, and it was at least a half hour too long. They should have taken some of the time they spent planning CGI effects and used it to seal some of the plot holes:

1. A witness pulls a gun out while he's on the witness stand? Excuse me?? This is some mythic land where the courthouses don't have metal detectors?

2. There's a terrorist threat against a hospital, so they evacuate every patient--*except* the one who's been in all the papers.

3. The police are transporting a high-profile prisoner, with dozens of vehicles escorting him and SWAT teams all over the place--but one trailer truck starts chasing them and they're all helpless.

4. The silliest thing of all--Batman's constant whispering. It's supposed to make him sound menacing, but he just sounds like he has laryngitis. It's like the old Superman TV show where people magically have no idea who he is as long as he keeps his glasses on.

I know I'm way in the minority on this one, but I have to say this was the ugliest, stupidest movie I've ever seen. I would have walked out if I weren't trapped at the end of an aisle. You couldn't pay me enough to sit through it again.

Was the above review useful to you?

344 out of 679 people found the following review useful:

Too many fans seem to be blown away

6/10
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?

17 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

The Dark Knight Delivers

10/10
Author: miscellaneous411 from United States
19 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Dark Knight maintained the intensity and overall gunmetal grayish feel that sets this Batman apart. The film takes us to a Gotham City that has grown accustomed to the big bat's crime-fighting crusades, and the last remaining big time criminals have actually grown fearful of his wrath. They form an alliance to attempt to keep their illicit business activities alive but are feeling even more pressure from yet a different angle: the passionate and fearless new district attorney, Harvey Dent. Recognizing the crime group's looming extinction, a stranger enters their circle and offers what he thinks is the only solution: kill Batman.

The bad guys don't know if they can trust this seemingly demented madman, and they later learn the hard way that they don't really have a choice, for the most disturbing part of the Joker's personality is his motive. He doesn't care about money or power. He just enjoys causing trouble and watching, with pleasure, from the sidelines, as the terrorized city scrambles in mayhem...which leads me to the real star of this film, Heath Ledger.

Ledger's performance as the Joker is astounding and consuming. We come face-to-face with a villain bearing the coldness of a psychopath and a personality that remains as mysterious and inexplicable as the real reason for the scars on his face. He develops the air of the lone offender quite early on as he nonchalantly kills those who help him commit his crimes. Yet, he has no problem building an army of followers, and the viewers easily find that believable. As insane as he is, he's focused and quite determined. Ledger also brings the Joker's humor to the role, but he does it in a way that is unique to this interpretation...with subtlety and honesty. The very words and mannerisms that made me laugh also evoked feelings of sadness in its clarity. The evil is incredibly convincing.

Although Batman is a character that is often marketed towards kids, this film is definitely not appropriate for young children. In addition to the dark images, the violence, both seen and implied, is sometimes unsettling, and Ledger's Joker is chilling even for adult viewers. Having said that, this is, by far, one of the best films I've ever seen, and it will easily find a place in my personal top ten. I am only disappointed that this Joker, the best villain in a film since Hannibal Lecter, will never be revealed to us again.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

A 2 and a half hour masterpiece which leaves you wanting more.

8/10
Author: silent_skies from London
7 August 2008

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

The Dark Knight has got to be the best film of 2008 by far. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker has left me speechless, but I'll talk more about him later on.

Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/ Batman once again. He is now more in control of his alter ego. This time he joins forces with district attorney Harvey Dent doing the best he can do protect Gotham City from the criminal underworld. What's more to say for Bale? He was made to play Batman.

As for Maggie Gyllenhaal, she was definitely a better replacement for the wooden Katie Holmes, but I don't really think she suited the role. Also now seeing the finale of her character I would have preferred Holmes.

Now for the highlight of the film, Heath Ledger. His performance as the Joker was simply electrifying. Every word he said sent shivers done my spine. From his facial expressions, gestures and dialogue, he merely became the Joker. I will have to agree with a lot of reviews on here, Ledger definitely deserves an Oscar for this role. Now it's understandable that some might think of it as a sympathy vote, but if you've seen his performance in the film then there's nothing to argue there. He deserves an Oscar even if he was alive today. My favourite Joker scenes are when he crashes the party and tells Rachel about how he got his facial scars, The disappearing pencil trick (Who wouldn't love that scene?), and when he disguises himself as a nurse. The Joker sometimes reminded me of Tyler Durden from Fight Club, only more psychotic and with face paint.

Last but not least, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were both respectively brilliant in their small but important roles in the film. Aaron Eckhart was also a nice addition to the cast and played Harvey Dent/ Two Face with ease.

So now to sum it all up, Christopher Nolan does it again folks. Full of non-stop action and great performances all round. I would go as far to say that I enjoyed it better than Batman Begins but hey, that's just me. The Dark Knight was a 2 and a half hour masterpiece which leaves you wanting more. Don't be left out and Believe the hype, go and see this at the theatres...NOW!

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Did you people see the same film I saw?

6/10
Author: lordfrazer from United Kingdom
24 July 2008

Do you REALLY think this was a better film than the Godfather? The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? The Seven Samurai, Pulp Fiction? OK, the Joker was a stand out performance, and the rest were good, but was this really the best film of all time? Can't see how that happened, and in 30 years this will sink to the middle of the pile where it should be.

You want an examination of good and evil and the duality of man? Watch the King of New York. It's a better film than this. I'm not saying it's not worth seeing, but please, this is NOT the best film of all time.....

This may be the best Batman film we've seen, but frankly I enjoyed Iron Man more. The action was good, the story reasonable, and there were some good supporting acts, but the whole experience doesn't move you like the Shawshank redemption, it wasn't a seismic shift in film-making like Pulp Fiction or the Godfather. The direction - better than Sergio Leone? The film hasn't been hyped that much, so where is this coming from?

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 396: [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 Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history