The Dark Knight (2008)

Movie Stills - View all?

User Lists:
Batman - Continuities Best Films of 2008

88%
Overall Rating

Ranked #2
...out of 14,074 movies

Genres / Traits: Action Crime Crime Drama Fantasy Superhero Film DC Comics

Connections: DC: Batman DC: Joker

Set within a year after the events of Batman Begins, Batman, Lieutenant James Gordon, and new district attorney Harvey Dent successfully begin to round up the criminals that plague Gotham City until a mysterious and sadistic criminal mastermind known only as the Joker appears in Gotham, creating a new wave of chaos. Batman's struggle against the Joker becomes deeply personal, forcing him to "confront everything he believes" and improve his technology to stop him. A love triangle develops between Bruce Wayne, Dent and Rachel Dawes. --IMDb

Review by Tristan
Added: July 19, 2008

With a few exceptions, none of you know me in real life. Therefore it's a little bit hard to honestly express my undying love for the Batman comics, shows, toys, and of course the movies. After watching Batman Begins on opening night and finding out The Joker was going to be in the next movie, I literally broke out in goosebumps. You know the feeling you get when you see your favourite band in concert? That's the feeling I get when I see The Joker on the big screen. To be perfectly honest, this is the "movie" of my life. This is the do all and end all of films. This tops any movie I've ever seen, and is essentially the ultimate dream of myself and millions of comic fans around the world. I appreciate Tim Burton's attempt at the rivalry between the two, but Nolan's 'Joker vs Batman' is the best match up I've ever seen in my life. It's going to be hard to review this film without rambling on like a 13-year-old fan boy, but bear with me folks, I have your best interests in mind.

Where to begin. We've all seen Batman Begins, and we know what the movie was about, and how it ended. If you saw it in theatres like I did, I'm sure you jumped for joy when The Joker card was revealed in the final moments. Three years later, we comic fans finally get what we've been craving. Just moments after the opening credits we're treated to The Joker's (Ledger) minions robbing the Gotham City Bank. After a slick getaway, we find out that The Joker has become a real menace - for both Gotham's finest and the mob. In a brief conversation between Lieutenant Gordon and Batman (Oldman and Bale, respectively) we find out that The Joker has been hitting up mob banks all over Gotham, stealing their cash before the police can get to it. At the same time, Gotham's newest District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), is starting his crusade against the mob bosses and corrupt officers as the city's "White Knight". Just to complicate things, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has moved beyond Bruce and fallen in love with Dent. While Batman struggles with his love for Rachel and passing the torch onto Dent so he can finally have a normal life, he is plagued by his guilt. It would seem The Joker has devised a plan to rid Gotham of Batman once and for all. Until Batman removes his mask and reveals who he truly is, the maniacal madman will kill a person every day. He's a man of his word.

All fanboyism aside - seem to be using that word far too frequently - Heath Ledger's performance as the Clown Prince of Crime is the most charismatic and perfectly played character I've ever seen. Everything from the weird facial expressions, fantastically delivered lines and of course, the maniacal cackle of an insidious madman were all spot on. Until now, Nicholson's Joker was considered to be the best, but I think it's high time he step aside and pass this title on to someone far more deserving. There are a lot of rumours circulating a potential Oscar nomination for Ledger's performance. Oddly enough, I could see him winning it. At first I couldn't believe he won the role - in fact, I was downright mad - but after finally watching the movie 2 years after the announcement I couldn't be happier. Nolan is a fantastic director, and knew he'd found the right man for the job in Ledger.

Ledger isn't the only one who pulls off a great performance. Gary Oldman is yet again, a perfect choice for the role of Gordon. I never once see him as anyone but the idealistic, hard working man that Gordon is. Eckhart also did a fine job as Dent. I was a little sceptical at first, but after watching the movie a few times, I think he did a fantastic job portraying the character's fall from grace. Pity he didn't receive a whole lot of screen time as Two Face, but what he did get was excellent.

As far as behind the camera, Nolan has proved yet again that he is one of the few people who "gets" Batman. Being able to combine a comic book world with the real world is no easy task, but he somehow pulls it off. There are some fantastic visuals in this film, and some really great action sequences. A personal favourite is the chase sequence that happens mid-film, and involves The Joker, Batman, Dent and some of Gotham City's finest. Nolan also did a great job of layering this movie so that there's more to it with each viewing. It's a comic book movie, but it can also be so much more. It constantly tests the morality of mankind, and The Joker, while completely insane, never stops testing Batman's limits. I've already seen it a few times, but I know that this is a movie I could never get tired of seeing. All the pieces come together nicely, everyone does a great job, and it's just a shame that Ledger won't be around to play the role again. I could not have asked for a better Joker.

This isn't to say the movie didn't have its problems. Even though Bale's Bruce Wayne is spot-on, he leaves something to be desired in the Batman department. He's good, but there's times where he just bothers me. I can appreciate him going for that "dark and menacing" voice, but it just always seems like he's out of breath and gasping for air. Small point, but this is Batman after all. Also, there seemed to be a few too many one-liners for my taste. Almost everything Lucius Fox and Alfred said was some sort of jab to make the audience laugh, and the police officer in the SWAT van transporting Dent made me want to puke. There were a few small editing problems I noticed, but aside from that this movie was excellent.

This is the most well deserved perfect I've ever given, and should essentially knock all my past 10/10's down a few notches. I'm 21 years old, and I think my movie watching career has peaked. I could not wish for a better movie, and I don't imagine I'll ever see one. Might just be the fan boy in me, but I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Two and a half hours in length, and not a minute too long. It's rare that a movie can keep me so glued for that amount of time. So if you haven't already, get out soon and see the one movie this year that's guaranteed to put a smile on that face.

10/10

Review by Mr. Mistoffelees
Added: July 18, 2008

There are few movies that I would go to the midnight showing for, not because I'm not an avid fan but because I figured the movie will be around the next night and none of my friends like to ruin movies. However, being that I am a huge fan of not only Batman but his recent movies, I knew I had to get the first showing in anticipation of the Joker. Now, having seen it and gotten little sleep because of dreams about it, I can say that it just may be the contender for my favorite superhero movie of all time.

For the three of you that don't know the story for this one, let me flesh it out. The Joker (Heath Ledger) has become a rising star of a criminal in Gotham, a psychopath who kills his own henchmen and whomever he wants, either for chaos or his own ends. As he robs banks and destroys lives, Batman (Christian Bale) is doing his usual badassery against crime; however, some other people have decided to dress up in the caped crusader's outfit and fight crime in his name. This obviously angers Batman, for while they use force and guns, he is trying to make the streets safer and less violent. Meanwhile, Harvey Dent (played here by Aaron Eckert) is the new DA working just as hard (legally top-side) as Batman to bring justice to Gotham, but him and Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) are encountering fierce resistance from said criminals.

The Joker quickly becomes the crux to Gotham's criminal leadership, for he comes in on a meeting to not only doing a spectacularly gruesome magic trick but to inform them that he can destroy the one thing standing in all of their ways- the Dark Knight. Through much deliberation and struggle, the Joker becomes the obvious mastermind behind everything in Gotham. And it's always up to Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Batman to stop him.

What a roller coaster ride of a movie. It gets going immediately and never stops until the end. The action was amped up for this one; Batman Begins had a good amount of action but less flowing on-screen. This movie features full-out fistfights and gunfights between Batman and the villains. Not only that, but if you have seen the trailer, in which the Joker says "Come on, HIT ME!" I can tell you first-hand that the scenes leading up to and including that are probably my favorite action scenes since Iron Man.

But let's get to what everyone really wants to know: the acting. Let me assure everyone who reads this that Heath Ledger literally gave his life to perfect this character. He was absolutely incredible; you cannot tell for a second that it is him playing the Joker. He IS the Joker, through and through. Every mannerism, every line of dialogue is seething with malice, insanity, and chaos. With all due respect to Jack, because he started it all, I have to give the character entirely to Mr. Ledger. Saying otherwise is a falsehood. Now, to talk about everyone else. Most actors and actresses reprise their role, and of course naming them all would be too much. Let's just say that there is not one poorly cast person in the movie. Every single person is an incredible actor in their own right and did exactly what was asked of them. Eckert as Harvey Dent was a perfect choice. His transition from DA to...well, if you know the name you know the person, is expertly done.

I cannot possibly say more without ruining the movie for you. However, there is one small gripe. Remember how Bale uses a guttural growl when speaking as Batman? Yea, he emphasizes it more in this one, kind of giving a pseudo-comical feel when he's not kicking ass or yelling. However, it is a SMALL gripe because it didn't take away from the overall feel of the movie or hurt it at all. With all of this said, SEE THIS MOVIE ASAP!

(Can I give it higher than a 10? I want to.)

Review by bluemeanie
Added: July 18, 2008

There are reasons to applaud "The Dark Knight". What director Christopher Nolan has done is take the "Batman" franchise and focus it more on crime and punishment than any of the old comic book mainstays. The film features some stunning visuals, some amazing performances and an intriguing and involving plot that does not confuse the audience. You might have read some other reviews that have pretty much said the same thing. But, they have also called "The Dark Knight" the best film of the year and the greatest comic book film ever made - a bold statement, by anyone's admission. This I cannot agree with. What I loved about "The Dark Knight" is partially what makes it a flawed film. Christopher Nolan's obsession with turning "Batman" into a realistic and more humanized protagonist kind of takes a lot of the whimsy and wonder out of the whole franchise. Personally, I love the fact that the film felt more Martin Scorsese than Sam Raimi - that's one of the reasons that I enjoyed "Batman Begins" - but I kept getting the sense that Nolan was maybe trying a little too hard to make "Batman" more believable. Guess what - he's a comic book superhero who lives in a city called Gotham - you can toss believability out the window. But, don't get me wrong - I enjoyed "The Dark Knight". It is one of the finer executed comic book films I have seen, but I think it has been somewhat over-hyped and it does not live up to the now impossible standards set forth by critics all over the country and beyond.

We find Batman (Christian Bale) protecting a Gotham that thinks of him more as a crazed vigilante than anything else. Alfred (Michael Caine) is still keeping him in one piece, while Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is running Wayne Enterprises like a champ. Bruce's former fling, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is now dating Gotham's new district attorney, the fabulous Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), whom all of Gotham - including Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman) - thinks will help raise Gotham out of the crime infested slums and restore peace and order. Enter Joker (Heath Ledger), a sadistic madman who promises the mob he will kill Batman for half of their funds. A game of cat and mouse ensues between Joker, Batman and the people of Gotham, with Joker constantly testing the moral foundations of all involved. Joker promises he will kill people daily until Batman turns himself in and removes his mask, revealing his true identity. There are some elaborate, but understandable, plot revelations and plot progressions in the film that keep things more than interesting, and it's always nice to see just how Joker is going to handle a situation or keep his efforts moving along. Eric Roberts co-stars as Salvatore Maroni, a crime boss; and Anthony Michael Hall stars as television reporter Mike Engel. By the end of the film, the line between hero and villains seems to have been blurred somewhat.

Let's start out with the positive. Heath Ledger. Believe it or not, he's every bit as good in the film as everyone has been saying. He takes Joker and injects so much life and so much venom into him that he's impossible not to watch. Ledger tackles the role with a sinister whimsy that is sometimes hysterical and sometimes frightening. I don't know that he deserves Academy Award consideration, but I won't be protesting if he receives it. Even stronger a performance comes from Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon. Oldman's role in "Batman Begins" was so miniaturized that it was nice to get to see him really go at it here. He gets some of the strongest emotional scenes in the picture. Aaron Eckhart is also very affective as Harvey Dent, who becomes Two-Face. Eckhart brilliantly shows the downward spiral from decent, hard-working civil activist to jaded, murderous villain. The visuals of the film are also stunning, at times. I loved the chase sequence that comes towards the middle of the film, and I loved the famed hospital explosion towards the end. Nolan overwhelms the senses here and never lets up for a moment with the action. The music, by the always phenomenal Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, is pounding throughout and makes a real impression. And, finally, the camerawork by Wally Pfister is inventive and makes a nice picture throughout. There is a lot to admire about this motion picture.

Now, here comes the negative. Christian Bale. First off, I still don't buy him as Batman. His Bruce Wayne is boring and bland and he delivers his lines with all the emotion one would expect from Bill Pullman in the role. His Batman looks like an action figure and sounds like he has tuberculosis - like Harrison Ford from "Air Force One". Did someone not listen to Christian Bale's Batman voice and think, "Ouch. Not good"? I also have a very difficult time with the fact that, evidently, Batman can fall ten stories or get shot and be as spruce as a goose, but can't handle a couple of dogs? Batman receives more damage from dogs in this film that he does any of the other conventional villains. And, when Harvey Dent catches fire - does Batman really not know how to put the man's head out before it burns him all the way to the bone? If Batman's afraid of dogs and can't put out a fire, what good is he to Gotham in the first place? I also had a problem with Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. On the whole, I suppose she was better than Katie Holmes, but she has absolutely no chemistry with either Bale or Eckhart and she plays the role one-note throughout. And what was with Nicky Katt during the chase scene, right before the helicopter crash, spitting out those cheesy one-liners and ruining any tension that was being built?

The biggest issue is that Christopher Nolan wanted to make Batman more realistic and a more humanized superhero. Fine. But you cannot take away everything that makes a superhero a superhero. I'm sorry, but Batman didn't seem very 'super' in this film. Luckily, we had Joker and Lieutenant Gordon to keep us interested and to offer some real emotion and some real conflict. "The Dark Knight" is a good film, and an entertaining film, but it floats on a suspended logic and constantly asks the audience to believe something simply because it's a comic book movie, even though the filmmakers go out of their way to try and make anything but a comic book movie. What's always separated Tim Burton's "Batman" from Christopher Nolan's "Batman" is the sense of whimsy and fantasy that Burton brought to Gotham and the characters. Once again, Nolan's version is not as strong as it could have been because it ignored those principles altogether. I want some whimsy when it comes to my comic book movie. I want some fantasy and some color. In the end, as much as I enjoyed "The Dark Knight", it's a mixed review from me, even though I know most of the audience out there will swoon. This one isn't as grand as you're hearing, but strong performances from Ledger and Oldman do make it definitely worth your while.

7/10.

#1: Nirrad - added 07/18/2008, 11:38 PM
I agree with parts of both reviews. Bale's voice annoys me. Some of the editing was weird in some places, most noticeable during the bat bike scene. And believe it or not, I expected a little more from Ledger. Maybe a little darker, but then again his performance is nothing short of amazing. Like Bluemeanie said, I don't know if he deserves the Academy Award, but if he did win it, it wouldn't bother me. Oh, and I thought the first 30 minutes or so were kinda lame and boring. There are a few more problems, but those are easily overlooked or have already been discussed. I'm not sure if I want to give it a 9 or a 10. But it's still awesome none the less.

#2: Ginose - added 07/19/2008, 12:33 AM
I would say that several moments sort of drug on, but the fights were well done and alot of the plot was appropriate. The effects were key, but Bale's Batman voice made me want to stab my eyes out, that and alot of the filming style was irritating (especially the tunnel scene). All the performances were good, amazing? No. Not at all. Possibly Ledger's best performance, but I will NOT say he was an excellent Joker. Heath played the "new" Joker all the way home, but he didn't "sweep me away" in his performance, he was definately impressive but over-shadowed by Eckhart who played Harvey Dent in a way I didn't think anyone could, I'll be damned if he doesn't make it to the sequal, regardless of the ending (hell, how many villans can Nolan pull out and still keep this half-stupid "realistic"theme). I can't say I love where Nolan has taken the franchise (in such a direction that he will accept atmosphere and theme to entertainment, logically depriving us from most of the more outlandish villans in the series) but I certainly can't hate it. It's just dark enough for the Batman name and entertaining enough to contiue being good action movies, but it'll never try to be more than that. I, personally, am with Billy Ray in that I'm sick of this idea of "humanizing" the charecters to the point that they aren't even their charecters anymore. We've now got a standard psychotic-thug in the place of the Joker and an emotionless blob as Bruce Wayne... and a throat-cancer victim for Batman...
Honestly, "Hellboy 2" was much more fun. Maybe not the better of the two, but I enjoyed it much more.

7.9/10

#3: Luminaire - added 07/20/2008, 10:22 AM
bluemeanie hit it right on the head as usual

#4: Bliss From A Dead Embrace - added 07/20/2008, 05:33 PM
This movie was epic. Batman begins was great but it wasn't entirely a batman movie. It was more Bruce Waynes transition to batman. This movie was 100% batman and rather then spending time getting to know the main characters, Wayne/Gordon/Alfred you got to see batman in action. Anything I could say about Ledger as the Joker has been said. He was perfect. Harvey Dent/Two Face was good for his role and served his purpose. The action was intense, the fight scenes were viciuos and fast and gave a real feel to them. Its nice to see a batman movie where he gets his hands dirty and busts some skulls. Bale's voice didn't bother me. It could be better but I think it also adds to the character. Bruce waynes a well known guy so batman needs his voice to be diffrent. Would a guy fighting crime with his bare hands care what he sounded like? As long as it got the job done I don't think he would. My only concern is who they will get to play the joker next. His characters alive and after all the chaos he caused in this movie I think it would kind of suck for the next movie to pick up with some crap saying he died in jail. Then again that might be better then having someone else fuck the character up. Maybe they will leave his character locked up for the next movie and search for a new one. Either way, this movie was epic, badass, thought provoking, dark and thrilling. 10/10

#5: Edd - added 07/21/2008, 09:01 AM
I was blown away by the film, and only have one gripe. It's becoming more evident that Bale cannot be an accurate or convincing Bruce Wayne. Whether or not it was the movie itself not really showing off Bruce in his billionaire playboy environment, or him just not really giving his all, he still can't do it. 8/10

#6: The Red Clover - added 07/22/2008, 01:03 AM
I'm really disappointed that anyone would dare have the gull to say that Christian Bale can't play a convincing Batman or Bruce Wayne. Compared to the last three actors who attempted to pull it off I would say Christian Bale is, by far, the best. Humanizing the role of Batman is bringing it back to the comics considering the comic book of Batman was to humanize the role of your standard superhero. He's not supposed to be whimsical or fantastic, he's a cunning individual with tons of training and a tragic background. Those of you who would demean Ledger's performance by suggesting he's nothing more then a "psychotic thug" or "this and that" really have no idea who the Joker was in the first place. The Joker WAS nothing more then a psychotic thug and Ledger played him an absolute tee. And for those of you who would call Bale's performance as "emotionless" you watch your parents get shot and see how "emotionless" you seem when you look in the mirror. Considering the story and background Christian Bale is perfect.

If you know your comics, this movie is a 10/10.

PS: Ledger is a superior Joker when compared to Nicholson. If you want campy then call Burton but I prefer my comic-book movies with a bit of canon and just a smidgen of good acting.

PPS: Burton is a cunt.

#7: bluemeanie - added 07/22/2008, 03:43 AM
I am a huge fan of the comics...and didn't love the film.

And, sorry, but Michael Keaton will always be the best Batman.

#8: Luminaire - added 07/22/2008, 08:28 AM
Bruce Wayne's parents were killed when he was a child, so props to the kid they had playing Bruce Wayne, because he acted with emotion. NOT CHRISTIAN BALE.

#9: The Red Clover - added 07/22/2008, 01:26 PM
Michael Keaton is a hack compared to Christian Bale because Michael Keaton had the unfortunate circumstance of starring in a Tim Burton film. It's amusing how a fan of the comics would prefer the campy crap that's been produced pre-Nolan. Are you even familiar with the concept of Bruce Wayne becoming "Batman" and "Bruce Wayne" becoming more of a costume compared to his attire as Batman? Are either of you even aware of the psychological motivation behind Christian Bale's so called, "emotionless performance?"

And I'm sorry, but Christian Bale has set the standard for what the role of Batman requires and is by far the best there is when it comes to the role of Bruce Wayne and Batman.

#10: The Red Clover - added 07/22/2008, 01:27 PM
The end. :D

#11: bluemeanie - added 07/23/2008, 12:02 AM
Yes...the end...but not for you, sir. Christian Bale is lifeless. A blank slate. Sorry, but it's true. If you can honestly say Christian Bale showed any real emotion or range in "The Dark Knight", then you have zero concept of either term. Sorry, but it's true. Michael Keaton was the perfect Batman because he portrayed Batman as a tortured hero. I could see the torture in Keaton's eyes. I cannot in Bale's. And just because you think Burton is a hack, doesn't mean he is, let me assure you. No offense to Chris Nolan, but go watch "The Prestige" and see just how much Burton has even influenced him. Burton's Batman worked best because it kept the flash and the comic book feel of the comic book, but still had Burton's insanely original imagery.

Now, the end...

#12: The Red Clover - added 07/23/2008, 03:13 AM
Lol. No, it's been the end since you started trying to prove me wrong and failing utterly at it might I add. Are you sure you're a film critic because if so where do I sign up because apparently it's not that hard of a job considering. It's been the end the moment you suggested you were a fan of the comics and ignore the realism that was supposed to be in the first four but was neglected, horribly.

No. Burton isn't a hack because I merely believe he is because that would suggest I have some sort of complex where all I say is true. He's a hack because my sixteen year old brother could direct a better movie then he could. Burton should stick with the animated films, anything else he's out of his league and facts speak for themselves -- Nolan outdid Burton, period and Bale outdid Keaton, period, and Ledger outdid Nicholson by leaps and bounds, period. :D Keep your opinion, Burton and Keaton but as a TRUE fan I'll sit back and acknowledge Nolan, Bale and Ledger for the massive achievement they've made and that was bring the Batman franchise from the grave the other three movies dug for it. Not only did they resurrect the franchise but they did with being the truest to the source material -- something you should consider picking up. Especially the graphic novel from which the movie derives it's name from.

Trust me, it's been the end for quite some time now. Not the end because I had said it was, but merely because you hadn't been aware of it. xD

#13: Crispy - added 07/23/2008, 04:58 AM
Haha, I must be the only one who liked Batman's voice. And I'll agree with the thoughts on Ledger, his Joker was fucking spot on. I hereby apologize for all the naysaying I did before hand. i could see him picking up a few awards when the time comes. And not because "Oh God, he died," he truly earned it.

#14: The Red Clover - added 07/23/2008, 05:04 AM
I loved Bale's voice! Lol. xD

#15: bluemeanie - added 07/23/2008, 02:31 PM
You're cute. And I am glad you think your 16-year-old daughter could direct a better film than Tim Burton. You obviously have your head so far up your own ass that you can't even see what your family's true talents are. That's fine -- you keep with your Christian Bale support -- that's just fine. At least I can keep solace that when I saw the film, there were more than a few people laughing every time he pulled out that ridiculous voice. Why? Because it's laughable. And ludicrous. And embarrassing. Maybe that's why you like it so much...

#16: The Red Clover - added 07/23/2008, 03:10 PM
I apologize that I don't swing that way but I do appreciate the compliment. Though if you intend on quoting me it says right there, "sixteen year old brother." He is quite talented but it doesn't take much talent to out-do someone like Tim Burton. I enjoyed Bale's performance not because it was embarrassing, as you would claim, but because he's a great actor and he did so well with it. I acknowledge and understand his portrayal because I am a "fanboy" and not a critic. You know I wouldn't believe your so called "credentials" until I realized that you're just like any other pathetic film critic -- Not a single person has found your review useful.

Written like a true critic, huh. A review about a movie you only understand on the surface while displaying your wannabe fan-hood of the franchise. I take solace in the fact -- and yes, fact, that you're nothing more then a pompous, ignorant peon with an unfounded sense of arrogance that borders on delusions of grandeur. Proof? The fact that while your review hasn't been useful at all, the review written by a "fanboy" has been. Resort to petty insults all you'd like but it only shows how desperate you are to pull yourself from the utter beating you've been given.

Reply if you'd like but I've not only made my point but crushed your's. You're fighting an up-hill battle you won't win, so tend to your wounds and seek someone else to debate, someone more your league -- someone a tad bit lower towards your own level.

#17: The Red Clover - added 07/23/2008, 03:19 PM
Do have a good day, evening, which ever time of the day you've chosen to read my reply though! :D

PS: Don't look at my lack of a reply as if you've gotten in the last word. Try and prove me wrong about my claim of your pompous behavior instead of lashing out. I am merely done with you and poor opinion. So while you may literally get in the last word, "the last word" was given when you claimed a false fandom of the franchise while preaching a "7/10" and a love for Burton. Really this had been over since then, but I couldn't help myself toying with a "critic."

#18: bluemeanie - added 07/23/2008, 03:24 PM
Awwww...aren't you a sweetie...yes, you've just obliterated me by basically recycling the same redundancies I have heard over and over again. That's what I love is that you idiots never change...you never get any more intelligible with your problems with a critical review of something. All you do is repeat the same things over and over again. It's like you fucking people have a club for losers. But, that's fine. It really doesn't make a difference to me what you think of one of my reviews...I just love sparring with morons from time to time. I have plenty of people who read my work online and in print and they seem to be pretty okay with what I have to say about film...so, when a pompous little ass like yourself comes along and tries to wag his tail in my face, it tickles me.

You're about as much a real "Batman" fan as I am a Laker girl. You're just a poser...a wannabe...the real 'hack'. Have nothing to do but surf around the net all day, finding reviews to pick apart because they don't meet your standard of 'excellence', which judging by these remarks is probably only half a notch about "Jury Duty". So, keep up the good work. It's morons like you who make a critic's job worth doing.

#19: bluemeanie - added 07/23/2008, 03:27 PM
Oh...and the most humorous thing about this whole ridiculous diatribe is that I actually have this film a positive review.

#20: The Red Clover - added 07/23/2008, 06:24 PM
Hah! If that's the best you can come up with then I feel sorry for your so called "subscribers." I do hope your print is a tad more eligible then your horrendous punctuation habits here in your replies. Poor thing, so unaware of when you've been out-classed. xD

#21: bluemeanie - added 07/23/2008, 06:59 PM
Oh, child...grow up. Out-classed? Go back to your WarCraft with all of the other nothings.

#22: Bliss From A Dead Embrace - added 07/24/2008, 12:32 AM
You guys are interwebz argueing over batman.

#23: Cryptorchild - added 07/24/2008, 03:47 AM
Yeah seriously. Just agree to disagree. You both enjoyed the movie to one degree or another. Fucking get over it. Damn, you're both acting like little kids. Anyway, I finally had the pleasure of watching this movie ther other night. Firts off, I hate comic book movies. Always have, always will. I couldn't give two shits about Batman or any other superhero out there. There was one reason and one reason only that I saw this movie and enjoyed it. The Joker. To ME personally, he stole the movie. I thought he was amazing. And that's just my opinioin, which to be honest does not mean anything to anyone. And that suits me just fine. I really enjoyed this movie a lot and I would gladly recomend it to anyone.

#24: Ginose - added 07/26/2008, 11:40 AM
I know my comics back and forth. I've been reading "Batman" since early childhood. I have an undying love of the characters and stories that few would understand and still consider me a normal human-being, and I, like Billy Ray, did enjoy the movie, but it was not a damn masterpeice... hell, I'll play middle man to their hillariously pointless argument and say that Burton's movies weren't fucking amazing, either. "Batman Returns" was great, but not a classic worth remembering.
As a fanboy supreme I STILL managed to judge this movie by filmmaking quality rather than "OMG BATMAN/JOKER/TWOFACE ZOMG!?!!/1!/1?1?!" factor. I wish others would do the same. If you judge it as an action movie, it's not incredible... hell, if you judge it as a hardcore Batman comic-nerd then you'll probablly find even more things to gripe about.
Speaking of which, what's all this bullshit about canon? You want canon? Jack's Joker is much more canon than Ledger's because, how can I put this... oh yes: HE WAS A CLOWN! He was a psycho, yes, but a funny one. A witty one. A psycho-criminal with tons of camp because that's what gave him personality. Ledger was, as I stated, merely a psychotic thug. That's all. I liked it, but I would have liked the actual Joker much better than this... thing... all in all, I did like Ledger's performance over Nicholson's, but that doesn't mean I liked his charecter more. The biggest kick in the balls to "real fans" of the comics is how much the director/writer is willing to sacrifice from the source material in order to humanize the characters.
Christ, Burton is not a hack.. he's done... a few good movies... And, I did LIKE Keaton as Batman, I didn't care for his Wayne, mostly because there's really not a role I've seen him in that he doesn't come across as (accidently or not) too funny for his own good. There wasn't alot of seriousness in his role as a whole.

Good movie. Not amazing.

And why am I feeding this fire? Because I'm a damned nerd, that's why.

#25: Rik - added 07/27/2008, 08:55 AM
Call me crazy, but I thougt Val Kilmer made a great Batman.

"It's the car right? Chicks love the car."

#26: Vash - added 07/27/2008, 07:00 PM
not to flog a dead horse, but...

- i loved the movie, but it is not the movie people seem to think it is. i'd love to have seen it (and the box office results) in a world where ledger was still alive. plot holes, unnecessary bloat and inconsistencies create issues. hong kong sequence, vigilante subplot and constant use of "everyone is corrupt!" twists were excessive.

- "realistic batman" movies render the character of batman useless, as evidenced by the fact that the movie focuses far more on gordon, dent and the joker than it does on batman. joker still manages to work in the "realistic" realm of the movie, whereas batman merely provides the action center. all superheroes are inherently ludicrous; removing them from their fantastical habitat only serves to magnify their ridiculousness. the guy dresses up as a bat, people.

- nolan needs to learn how to zoom out. action sequences, though clearly not the focal point of the movie, were muddy. would prefer more long shots like batman gliding over hong kong, or joker hanging out of the squad car.

- the "canon" argument is null and void when dealing with a franchise that is almost 80 years old. west, burton, miller and timm all produced wildly different takes on the material, and no one would call either one into question. (as an aside, you can't use miller's versions as canon anyway, since dark knight returns was "elseworlds.")

- ledger is the definitive joker, usurping nicholson's "iconic" version, which isn't that far removed from the actor's own persona. oldman and eckhart do amazing work with the unenviable task of playing straightmen in the face of bale and ledger. as for bale, we need more bruce wayne, less batvoice.

- eric roberts!

- all things considered, the movie makes it easy to ignore its own flaws, even upon second viewings. not the best movie ever, or even the best superhero movie ever, but a damn good summer blockbuster.

- bluemeanie is a buttblasting faggot.

- k thx bye

#27: Vash - added 07/27/2008, 08:50 PM
SPOILER!

also, can someone settle the argument of whether or not two-face is dead? i'm on the record as saying he is not. if he IS, then that's a huge waste of a character that they spent two and a half hours building up. also, they base the movie around this guy, and his denoument is a quick fall off a not-very-high building? this is why i think he's alive. that, and the fact that they didn't actually show him being buried or anything at the memorial. obviously the joker's resolution was left hanging (ha) due to obvious circumstances, but i felt that the two-face thing was way too open-ended. the movie is long anyway, five minutes of exposition at the end of it wouldn't have killed anybody.

bluemeanie sucks, although we do pretty much agree on this movie, so i can't hate on him for that. he still sucks, though.

#28: The Red Clover - added 07/27/2008, 10:31 PM
Vash -

In my own opinion it would seem that Two-Face is not dead. Nolan hinted earlier in the movie that a fall from that distance wouldn't kill a man when Batman dropped Maroni and Maroni fell only to break his ankles. To be honest I think Dent would have had to fall on the exposed part of his skull to sustain enough harm to kill him however Two-Face landed on his back. Batman almost comments that, "Dent is dead" while Gordon makes mention of wanting to "save him."

If Nolan was to make his epic into a trilogy the logical next villain would be Two-Face with a secondary villain that keeps with the "killer" theme. While he has a huge base of villains to choose from, so far Nolan has only dealt with murderers -- the rest are really thieves, just, glorified thieves. I believe Eckhart did with Two-Face/Harvey Dent the very same thing Ledger did with the role of the Joker and that was make it his own. Eckhart would own the next movie if Nolan were to take that step.

#29: Crispy - added 07/27/2008, 10:44 PM
If you'll remember when Dent attempted to interrogate one of Joker's thugs, Batman identified him as a schizophrenic named Jervis Tetch. Jervis Tetch is the real name of the Mad Hatter, so that's my prediction for the next villain.

#30: Vash - added 07/28/2008, 12:08 AM
totally didn't catch the mad hatter thing. i've always wanted him to be in a movie, but i always figured they'd go for someone like the riddler for the next one. you never know, though. a lot of the bat-villains are just take-offs on the joker, so i hope they pick someone who can really create their own persona in the nolan series. mad hatter and riddler are great, but i think they're too close to the joker to really stand on their own.

#31: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 12:35 AM
Too bad his name was Thomas Shiff, and not Jervis Tetch.

#32: Crispy - added 07/28/2008, 12:51 AM
So I got some lying friends, what a dipshit. Strangely, there are STILL forums ripe with the idea that he'll come back to be the Hatter.

#33: Chad - added 07/28/2008, 12:54 AM
Wikipedia says that it's Jervis. No clue, not a fan, yatta yatta, but there you go.

#34: Nirrad - added 07/28/2008, 12:55 AM
It's too bad this movie ate it. What a waste of time, bring back Joel Schumacher dammit, it is best.

#35: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 12:58 AM
Not only is that description inaccurate, but they say his name in the movie. Foreshadowing? I think not.

#36: Nirrad - added 07/28/2008, 01:02 AM
It's foreshadowing Catwoman, I'll tell you that. I guarantee the 3rd one is gonna end up like Spiderman 3. Mark my words. Then we'll have yet another revision and so on and so forth. What is the point of this post? Nothing!

#37: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:03 AM
Aaron Eckhart will undoubtedly reprise his portrayal as Dent as the main villain. The secondary villain will probably be another murderous psycho that compliments Two-Face's presence. Someone like the Mad Hatter would not go well in the Nolan vision, nor would the Riddler. Someone like Deadshot with maybe a possible appearance by Harley Quinn. Though technically with how the Riddler beat Green Arrow's ass after the whole "Hush" thing I'm sure Nolan could find a way to fit Riddler 2.0 somewhere. It'd be interesting to see at least.

#38: Nirrad - added 07/28/2008, 01:06 AM
I could see the Riddler in the new one. Like he sends riddles to Batman and the authorities with clues on his next victim. Then if they fail to solve the riddle, he kills them............I got nothing.

#39: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:07 AM
xD

#40: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 01:12 AM
I'd love to see Tom Elliot make his way into the movies, but I think they'd save that for the 4th or 5th instalment. And by that time, it most likely won't even be Bale or Nolan anymore. It just seems like they'd have to exhaust all the other characters first, before diving into the newer and less popular ones.

#41: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:15 AM
And the Mad Hatter's name is Jervis Tetch.

#42: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:18 AM
I couldn't agree more and it's a shame too because "Hush" was such a great storyline.

#43: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 01:18 AM
Thanks tips. I'm talking about Hush.

#44: Crispy - added 07/28/2008, 01:19 AM
No kidding. He was saying the schizo's name was Schiff, not Hatter's.

#45: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:21 AM
Wait I lost my place somewhere. I know when you said Tom Elliot you were talking about Hush.

#46: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:21 AM
What about Jervis then?

#47: Crispy - added 07/28/2008, 01:24 AM
Someone told me the guy Dent interrogated was Tetch. Apparently, it wasn't.

#48: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 01:25 AM
According to Wikipedia it is. However, like I said before, the little description on Wikipedia isn't even accurate when referencing the scene in the movie, let alone it being Tetch. It's just some stupid fanboy being a douche.

#49: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:26 AM
Oh! Wtf, I thought someone was disputing the Mad Hatter's identity or something. I'm about to watch the movie again because I am a filthy pirate so I can attempt to see if that was the case. If it was I don't think it foreshadows anything because if it had been Tetch then it was a third rate actor just portraying an easter egg for the fans.

#50: The Red Clover - added 07/28/2008, 01:27 AM
Sorry for jumping in with what I had said, I was obviously lost. Lol.

#51: Edd - added 07/28/2008, 02:17 PM
I've seen this movie 3 times now, and the guys name is Thomas Shiff.

#52: Tristan - added 07/28/2008, 11:20 PM
Thanks sweetie.

#53: Optimus Prime - added 07/29/2008, 03:36 AM
Batman sounded like Assy McGee. LOL!

#54: grain of sand - added 08/04/2008, 04:36 PM
I'm late, but I loved this movie.. Batmans death metal voice was cool, didn't bother me at all.
It all looked really great and everything surpassed my expectations, fuck yeah 10/10

#55: Greg Follender - added 08/10/2008, 03:51 AM
I found the movie to be enjoyable... but not nearly the bombshell that everyone was ranting about.

(Let's ignore the fact that Nolan has decided to portray Wayne as a costumed meathead instead of a calculating detective and his choice to reduce the comic's inventive sleuth to an appropriating army surplus warhorse)

Story was serviceable, but not particularly tight or overly compelling... and the action sequences were fairly by the close/quick-edit textbook. Nice camera work though... and i must admit that Aaron Eckhart really shined as Harvey Dent. His slow burn into his villainous alter-ego was far more compelling than the over-the-top Ledger joker. Don't get me wrong, folks... Heath did a GREAT job as the clown prince of crime... but his portrayal was predictably forced. There wasn't a single moment onscreen when i wasn't fully aware of what he was going to do next. Let's face it... if you don a face full of terrifying grease-paint, are shot with intense filtered camera angles, and your scripted dialogue comes littered with some of the best one-liners in the film... you're going to come off like a champ! He (Ledger) did a great job... but the way that film was shot and scripted, you could put a chimp in that make-up and he'd be suitably terrifying...

Bale was easily as wooden as he was in the last film... and to be fair, he had less to work with. This was more about the villains, i suppose... but if history (or Tim Burton) has taught us anything, it is that focusing more on the secondary players to the detriment of the main character often leads to cinematic disaster. This film evaded that usual story bloat... but the fact that Nolan felt he had to cram the totality of the Dent/Two-face saga into this film once the Joker was dealt with bodes dangerously for future sequels...

All in all... a good superhero flick... and an intriguing Batman interpretation.
But the Bat-suit needs to go... it makes a cool character look like a clumsy rubbery dolt...
7/10

#56: Strait Killa - added 11/13/2008, 07:25 PM
A good movie, no doubt. I enjoyed it ten times more than i did Batman Begins. But I still can't even begin to imagine how it could be ranked #4 overall of the greatest movies of all time on IMDB.com. And since it is, I can't help but believe that this is the most overrated movie I have ever seen

#57: George Snow - added 12/19/2008, 06:41 PM
I grew up on Adam West as Batman. We even made a special trip to the City to see the movie opening day. I had the Robin Halloween costume and would jump off our steps saying POW and ZAP, humming the theme. But, I've never fully appreciated the new Batman movies. I thought the original with Nicholson was excellent but too dark for my Batman.

I never made it through the entire Batman Begins and Batman's voice when in costume sounds like a bad impression of Clint Eastwood. Ledger did a great job, but if he didn't die before this movie came out, the feelings of a brilliant performance wouldn't be resonating so loudly. He was excellent, and considering his true accent, he was phenomenal. But, about an hour and twenty minutes into the movie I checked the box to see how long the movie was, and when I saw it was two and a half hours long, I almost had a heart-attack. WAY TOO LONG!!

One question: Batman had no problem at all killing bad guys. He did it throughout the movie. Why didn't he just let the Joker fall?

As The Fecal Kid says: He's a rabid fan, so I fully understand why he loves this movie.

#58: Nirrad - added 01/22/2009, 10:27 AM
Well, it looks like Heath is getting nominated for best supporting actor. We'll see how that pans out. As for the other awards, TDK isn't nominated for any of them.

#59: Bloodwork - added 04/27/2009, 12:56 AM
Wow. The insanity. I'm talking about the comments btw...

Okay first things first. I'm sick of the whole "Nolan's better than Butron, Ledger was better than Nicholson, Bale is better than Keaton" crap. THEY ARE COMPLETLY DIFFERENT MOVIES WITH COMPLETLY DIFFERENT ACTORS AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DIRECTORS!!!

I have a soft spot for Tim Butron's "Batman" and "Batman Returns" I have loved this movies since I was a little kid. Sure they might seemed a little dated now but they were the orginal and some would whisper the best (I do mean whisper. Wouldn't want the fanboys bursting a blood vessel would we?)

I thought these movies were excellent. And I thought Keaton made a great Bruce Wayne, not so much a great Batman.

I then proceeded to hate every Batman film Burton didn't make, until "Batman Begins" came along

Now I really liked this film, and its subsequent sequel "The Dark Knight". Not as much as Tim Burton's first 2 Batman movies, but still liked them a lot. My only gripe with this movie is I am still not feeling Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. Sure his Batman is okay, but lets be honest his Bruce Wayne just comes across as...bland. Not enough quirk or spark for my taste. Maybe that's just because I feel Christian Bale could barely act his way out of a wet paper bag, or maybe just because he is a giant douche. Regardless many people seem to like him in these movies, so I'll play along just to keep the peace.

As for Heath Ledger's portrayl of The Joker, I thought it was excellent. I also thought Jack Nicholson's portrayl was excellent. And If I hear one more person say that one is better than the other I will stab them in the neck with a sharpened pencil. Two amazing actors both playing a great character, both giving it its own unique spin. It's the fact that they both played it differently that makes The Jokers portrayl so great in two different movies. Who cares who you prefer, enjoy both and shut up.

As for the actual movie, 9/10

#60: Rest Easy Soul - added 01/24/2010, 08:22 PM
I didn't read any of the above comments but I will try to give my own personal view.

I think this movie was great but was WAY too long and had plenty of dialogue driven scenes that were very unnecessary. A few plot holes yes, but it's just another movie being nitpicked to death by everyone.

When I saw it in theaters I was blown away and awe struck and of course my expectations were far exceeded, but after all the hype dies down it's just another 5-star movie. Not one of my top 10, but definitely a cinematic accomplishment and among the top 20 (debatable)

Other than my minor complaints it's still a very good movie. 9/10

#61: Lucid Dreams - added 05/25/2010, 01:52 AM
Aside from the very small things that I didn't like on here I will have to say it was perfect for me. It had my two favorite bad guys from the comics and they did such a great job on the acting. 10/10

Recommended Movies	Show More?