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 425: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 4250 reviews in total 

26 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

One of the Best Superhero movies EVER!!!!!!!

10/10
Author: baltazar07
15 January 2012

I saw the dark knight about three years ago when I was in the 8th grade. And I was blown away at how beautifully done it was, the camera work, the acting, the story, it all took me by surprise. It is to this day one of the best movies I have ever seen or will see. No other movie can impact you in such an intense way than The Dark Knight. It is a movie worth seeing due to the fact that the workers put so much time and effort into this one film and they did not want to waste money putting up garbage. So Christopher Nolan, thank you for not wasting our time, instead earning our time with this film. To this day I still am anxious to see the movie at home. I recommend it to anyone who likes action movies in general. To anyone who doesn't, don't waste your time write bad reviews about this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

142 out of 271 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?

355 out of 697 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?

23 out of 37 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?

22 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Fantastic!

10/10
Author: krazycrukids from United States
11 January 2012

Im just gonna start off by saying I LOVE this movie.Its one of my favorites of all time. I honestly cant think of too much wrong with this movie other than its a little long and Batmans by now infamous voice. But everything else is top notch. The acting,story,atmosphere,and actions scenes are all amazing. If you haven't seen this movie see it right now! I went into this not expecting to much but I came out blown away, I cant imagine any movie being much better. I'll just have to wait for The Dark Knight Rises to release to see if anything can be better. Until then, this stands as the best movie I've ever seen

Was the above review useful to you?

60 out of 112 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?

67 out of 126 people found the following review useful:

Not impressed

4/10
Author: jmaycock from Maynooth, Ireland
25 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I know I am going against the tide here. And I am happy that so many people had a good experience watching this film. I didn't. Maybe I just don't get it? I'm not sure, because I am a fan of superhero films in general. I think perhaps what I don't like is a superhero film that tries to be so serious as to make us believe in it. Batman, and previously I would say Unbreakable, fall into this category. If you want me to take you seriously then tell me this. How the hell does a guy with his face painted run around a city causing mayhem without getting caught? How does a guy who kills his accomplices continue to have support? I mean he even burns the loot so money isn't the answer. How does a guy who claims he doesn't like planning (because he's too crazy to care about planning) manage to get so many barrels of oil and dynamite positioned all around the city with ease. How does he get said equipment on to the two very important ships? A city that is on high alert? Was there nobody to check? The list goes on and on. If the film wants to be taken seriously, I think it has to fill these holes. If it doesn't, then no problem. There can be as many holes as you like.

Another bad point was the length of the film. Far too long.

On the plus side the acting was very good, although I didn't like the overly put on voice of Batman. However, Ledger deserves all the praise he has been getting for this.

Was the above review useful to you?

108 out of 208 people found the following review useful:

This movie was a joke...

1/10
Author: bigben5 from Calgary, Canada
28 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

C'mon folks, you call this movie a masterpiece? The greatest movie of all-time? Sheesh, I thought people had higher standards than this.

The only reason why people went to see this movie is because it was Heath Ledger's last performance. And boy, does he deliver! But is it really worthy of an Oscar? Well, that depends on how you interpret The Joker.

To be fair, there is no right way to interpret The Joker. His past is just as mysterious as his motivation. But how can you create a character with absolutely no history and expect him to be believable? In the comics, his name was Jack Napier, a thug/ comedian who fell into a bath of chemicals that bleached his skin as white as snow. He had only one motivation for all the mayham he caused -- to amuse himself. This back story, that I've just given you, makes the villain far more credible than he was in the film. Even Charles Manson, one of the greatest killers of all- time, had a motivation for killing that made sense to him, but in this film we are never given any insight as to what this might be.

Okay, so I have no problem with Heath Ledger winning an Oscar here. Then why did this movie suck? Because it was created for shock value instead of for entertainment.

This movie has no plot. "The Joker wrecks havoc on Gotham," is pretty much the only storyline you get. There are cars blowing up, people blowing up, people screaming blue murder and other bits of mayhem that make as much a sense as people screaming for mercy in a Godzilla film. Did Batman really have to fly all the way to Hong Kong to capture a corrupt banker or was that a ploy from the Chinese government to showcase the area for the 2008 Olympics? Why can't Christian Bale fight after all this time? Do you think those people on the boat would have talked things out in a "civilized" manner with the bombs about to explode? Me thinks pandemonium would have ensued, and that in the real world they would have dead in 10 seconds flat. Can you really set 30 million cell phones off to find one person? I think the writers wrote themselves into a corner on that one.

Another thing that bugs me about this film is Two-face. The movie doesn't give lip-service to his love for duality at all. He just wakes up and goes "Gee, I have a burnt face. May as well use it for scaring kids," and runs off plugging people, serving up his own brand of justice. To say that he was a hero was laughable, as people serve up their own brand of justice all the time. All you need to do is walk down the wrong alley at the wrong time to see what I mean.

Overall, this film was terrible. Christian Nolan's vision of creating a modern Batman kills the whimsical charm and poetic lyricism established in the earlier movies directed by Tim Burton. Besides, Danny Elfman's theme will always be the defining music of the Dark Knight.

By the way, what ever happened to the Bat Cave? They should never have taken that out.

Was the above review useful to you?

110 out of 212 people found the following review useful:

Ledger saves pretentious, overwrought superhero movie

6/10
Author: Dan Franzen (dfranzen70) from United States
20 July 2008

Oddly enough, I don't go into a theater before watching a blockbuster movie with the expectation that it'll be over-hyped and bloated; that's just how it turns out from time to time. No, I have reasonable expectations just like the next guy.

As I check out the reactions to The Dark Knight, I notice a common thread - everyone likes the movie. Particularly, everyone seems enamored of Heath Ledger's unhinged, magnificent, and terrifying performance as The Joker. Straight out, I want to make clear that I completely agree. Ledger isn't just some ham acting out in a clown costume; we had Jack Nicholson do that already, nearly twenty years ago. Ledger commands the screen not with an over-the-top performance but a scene-stealing, subtle one. His makeup masks not only a despicable demon who hurts for the sake of causing pain but also a troubled, carefully shaded character worthy of Shakespeare's finest plays.

Let's first get to what I didn't like. Many of the main roles are miscast, sometimes badly so. Christian Bale returns as the Caped Crusader, but if anything his performance is more wooden than in the movie's predecessor, Batman Begins. See, I've always thought the complex Batman character should be someone who's consumed by inner demons, one who even when unmasked reveals only some layers while hinting at much greater depths. And I never get that impression with Bale as Batman: He is what you see, and little more. Yes, we know he's got this secret identity thing going, and he doesn't tell people everything, and that's nice. Endearing, even. But Bale's inadequacies as an actor show up in spades here, because I never get the feeling that there's more than meets the eye. Bale's Batman doesn't feel like he's consumed by demons in the least; he seems like a pretty boy with a lot of money who likes to torture (yes, torture) and kill bad guys without any of the blame or acclaim.

Moving along, we have a new Rachel Dawes, aka The Love Interest, played this time by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who's a monumental improvement over the wretched performance that Katie Holmes gave in Batman Begins. Even so, as has been noted elsewhere, Gyllenhaal is too intelligent, her eyes too ironically knowing, to play the role. She seems out of place, because she's smarter than Rachel Dawes - an assistant DA - is. (Of course, we don't see much of Rachel doing DA stuff; we see her running from place to place in a panic, or professing her love for Harvey Dent through nonverbal ways, or smiling coquettishly.) So: Like the Maggie Gyllenhaal, a LOT, but she was far better than her character was written. Someday they'll get it right.

And then there's the third wheel to the love triangle: Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart. Now, you have to set aside Tommy Lee Jones's performance as Dent in one of the earlier Batman movies, because this is a new Bativerse, and it's like those other movies never happened. Dent eventually becomes the physically and mentally scarred Two-Face, but Eckhart can't quite handle the heavy lifting that the complicated character demands. When you see Eckhart, you think of likable cad, the slightly slimy guy who's better than the real hero at basically everything. But in a charming way. Here, Dent's a noble crusader, the district attorney who's going to clean up Gotham, but Eckhart is just another toothy, slick, Ken doll who's there just to look good. The way Eckhart plays Dent, you'd think he was just an affable fellow who wants to do the right thing; as with Bruce Wayne, there doesn't seem to be any undercurrent of ulterior motives, nothing to see here, please disperse. Eckhart, despite having studied split personalities in preparing for the role, is clearly in way over his head here.

The movie itself is overlong, even bloated. It seems the in thing nowadays to have a movie end several times - you know, to keep the Great Unwashed on their toes. Oh my goodness! It's not over yet! What will happen next? But surely there's a way to do this without producing a film that's two and a half hours long. If you're going to make a movie that long, be my guest, but the movie should be more than our heroes running from action scene to action scene, particularly when those action scenes are in dark, dank Gotham City.

But here are some positives, to make sure all bases are covered. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine exude effortless efficiency as Lucien and Alfred, respectively, doing far more for the movie than it for them. Both act as Bruce's conscience, and both roles were written as to be completely believable. Professionalism is always a plus when casting superhero movies. And some of those vaunted action scenes are a lot of fun to watch, although many of them seem to involve Batman jumping off a building, Batman climbing down the side of a building, or Batman throwing someone else off a building. In the dark. Because it's supposed to be gloomy ol' Gotham.

So for me, The Dark Knight was a disappointment. It's not a bad little film, but it felt too loose, as if writers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan had decided on an ending and then threw everything they could think of into the plot to reach that goal. This happens to a lot of middling action films - the hero races to point A, escapes certain death, races to point B, escapes certain death, repeat ad infinitum. Same sort of thing here, only we don't even get clever plotting that we might expect from what's purportedly a higher grade of superhero movie. There's much chaos in The Dark Knight, but ultimately the maelstrom of disorder consumes, rather than engages, the viewer. Dark Night is elegy to the great potential - realized and unrealized - that's forever lost with the death of Heath Ledger.

Was the above review useful to you?

119 out of 230 people found the following review useful:

The Dark Nothing

1/10
Author: HoBopkins from eel, utah
29 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was one of the worst movies ever made. Never before have I witnessed a more confusing and convoluted mess. There were about ten subplots, but there was no main plot. The Joker existed to run amok and to represent the "honest villain", that is, he didn't mess around and play games like most villains, and he didn't do it for money, he just killed and wreaked havoc for the heck of it... okay, that's fine. But in having the Joker purposely ruin all the other subplots involving other bad guys, it basically made all the energy in having to keep up with the subplots involving these other people come to nothing. It was very tiresome realizing that everything you witnessed, after two hours of non-story action and hammy performances, really didn't mean a thing, kind of like when a movie shows that "it's all a dream". It might as well have been a dream. Because in this complete mess of a film, nothing mattered. The Joker had no purpose - which was intentional. But since the rest of the movie had too much purpose, or rather, tried too hard to have all the purpose in the world - it all came together like a big explosion... then, nothing. Just ruins. And two and a half hours of my life wasted. As for Heath Ledger, he wasn't terrific. He wasn't amazing. He was horrible. Weak. Sounded like a nerd. And he claims to have studied from "A Clockwork Orange" (please!), but he seemed more like he was doing a Johnny Depp impression, being silly and androgynous. It's just such a mess of a film. Horrible, simply horrible. And the reason I haven't mentioned Batman himself, is that he was so nothing, that there isn't anything to say about him. The main character seems more like a Vin Diseal character, and not a comic book hero. I understand trying to make the franchise more serious after being ruined by Joel Schumaker, but this film doesn't resemble a comic book in any way at all. It could have been a cop film, only the main cop had pointy ears, and the main villain had really bad makeup.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 425: [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