|Page 3 of 421:||            |
|Index||4202 reviews in total|
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.
*** 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.
*** 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
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.
*** 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.
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
This is one of the best I've watched the movie trilogy. I don't see TDK just as a superhero comic book movie because screenplay was written in a perfect way. Created by Nolan Batsuit-mobile perfect design. The most beautiful thing in the film to return to The Joker's and Ledger as the Joker was created to be such an amazing acting. When good and evil sits down to have a talk like an interrogation scene, everyone in the audience shuts up and listens to what they have to say. That's I think this movie is great. I just did not like the actor who portray the character of Rachel Dawes. Other than that Nolan and his team did a great job. They can make 100 movies but we will feel its something missing perfect acting, one of the best actors of all time nobody can be better than Ledger as the Joker.
Whatever else it may be, "The Dark Knight," Christopher Nolan's follow
up to his "Batman Begins," the film that resurrected the Batman
franchise, is the most ambitious superhero film ever made. It's full of
brooding ruminations about the inherent nature of humanity, obviously
fueled by the troubled state of a post-9/11 world, and it packs an
awful lot of plot into its two-and-a-half-hour running time. However,
be cautioned, and don't let its #1 rating at IMDb set up expectations
that the film can't possibly meet. I doubt any experienced film goer is
truly going to think that this is the best film ever made.
The praise heaped on Heath Ledger for his performance as the Joker is well deserved. Indeed, the Joker becomes the focus of this movie, which may not be such a desirable thing, given that this is...you know....a Batman movie. The caped crusader fades into the background in this installment, to the point where you might leave the movie and forget that he was in it. Ditto Maggie Gyllenhaal, who plays the love interest, and who, true to the superhero movie formula, gets practically nothing to do. But Ledger you WILL remember. He creates a fascinating character in the Joker, and it's through him that the movie poses all of its major moral questions. Is it human nature, as the Joker suggests, to devolve into chaos when the illusion of order is taken away; or do humans have an inherent kindness that will cause them to look out for one another even when circumstances seem to call for self preservation? One of the most fascinating things about Ledger's creation is that the Joker has no more motive as a criminal than to pose questions like this. He's not out for money or even power -- he just wants to create anarchy and see what happens.
I was not prepared for the other villain the screenplay throws into the mix: Two Face, played well by Aaron Eckhart. The film is too long, and it's this storyline that makes it so. Chrisotpher Nolan and his brother, Jonathan, the co-writers of the film, would have done well to leave this plot line out. By the end of the film, there are too many characters doing too many things independently of one another, so that the film loses focus slightly.
The movie looks fantastic though, and the production team does wonders with Chicago (where I live by the way). In fact the look of the film is one of its major selling points, and I was pleased to finally see a superhero film that looks cinematic rather than cartoonish.
So...an excellent addition to the superhero genre and a completely entertaining experience....but it's still, after all, a Batman movie, and it's not the best film since "Citizen Kane."
*** 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.
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
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.
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.
|Page 3 of 421:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|