Batman, Gordon and Harvey Dent are forced to deal with the chaos unleashed by an anarchist mastermind known only as the Joker, as it drives each of them to their limits.
Like this Movie? You can Favorite it on your Profile.
User Reviews of REVIEW: "The Dark Knight" (6)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these reviews. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove reviews at their discretion.
thomas pappas said on Jul. 29, 2008 at 9:19am
Saw it last night in Ithaca....where the seats rumbled seemingly from below as the Batman's motorcycle darted in and out of traffic. This movie should have been 30+minutes shorter. The story was for me too complex. Heath Ledger was great as Osama Bin Laden....the ineptitude of the police and regular Gothamites mirror all of us in our struggle w/ al qaeda.
GG is too kind to this movie........where does the Joker get the time to plant explosives in such quantity to destroy hospitals and large ferry boats? And how does a "skinny little" guy lift all those giant fuel drums, in secret, into the holds of those ships? Wouldn't somebody notice a guy w/ a lot of bad makeup struggling w/ them? I know he's angry from a bad childhood, and that can release adrenaline, but c'mon.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 04, 2008 at 1:17am
I can't access Grella's review of Dark Knight. I thought this was a horrible movie. In order to be effective this type of movie needs some credibility. The actions and accomplishments of the Joker were probably 1000 times beyond a meaningful threshold of credibility. All apparently carried out by someone who abhors planning and uses insane henchmen. This might be an understatement as I left with 45 minutes to go.
As a minute example, the beating that Batman gave the Joker in the interrogation room would have broken bones as well as knocked him out. Yet the physically uninspiring Joker showed absolutely no affect. This compared to the realism they have tried to place with Batman who shows regular injuries in spite of armor.
The sad fate of Heath Ledger has probably left his role immensely overrated. He apparently went to great lengths to prepare for this insane role which was probably an unhealthy thing to do.
Max said on Dec. 04, 2008 at 5:28pm
Boy, when I watch movies, especially ones based on comic books, I really analyze the realism. For example, X-Men, or Incredible Hulk, or even Hell Boy!!
You both are taking this movie, way, way too seriously. Re watch the movie, not analyzing it's realism, and it's apparent that it is one of the better action movies Hollywood has produced in a long while.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 05, 2008 at 12:44am
Comparisons to the three movies you named aren't really relevant. Batman doesn't involve supernatural powers, this in the past has helped it offer some additional meaning to us mortals. The only mind-numbing meaning I found in the movie I found myself murmuring repeatedly, 'Just kill the guy (and end the movie)'.
As one reviewer commented 'This was the least credible villain I've ever seen'. I would add it was one of the least meaningful movies I've seen in a long time (with a sad backdrop of Ledger's fate). Did the Joker at any time display his trademark humor?
As for action content, admittedly modern Hollywood movies have so many camera switches - as with The Bourne Ultimatum - that whatever the stunt people are doing is difficult to appreciate anyway and in this context perhaps The Dark Knight shines.
If you want to see some critical takes on TDK including the action content (from those who saw the whole thing), you might check here www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/usercomments?filter=hate;start=0
As someone who has read comics -- including Batman comics -- for more than 20 years, I found Ledger's portrayal of the Joker to be very consistent with some of the more modern takes on the character. The criticism that he didn't display any of his trademark humor really just points to a lack of understanding about the character: the Joker isn't supposed to be funny. He's supposed to be insane, an agent of chaos, which is what makes him a perfect foil for the equally mentally disturbed Batman, whose is relentless in his quest is to impose order. The gags that were the hallmark of the character in portrayals ranging from Cesar Romero to Jack Nicholson have no place in a post-modern, post-ironic context, which is absolutely what Nolan and company were going for (and, I would argue, achieved). The Joker in "Dark Knight" isn't meant to be silly or campy. He's there to represent something Batman can't hope to ever truly stop: someone who destroys without reason, whose only point in life is to f**k stuff up because he's f**ked up. As for why Batman just doesn't kill him and get it over with, that's something comic fans have been asking for decades. The answer is fairly simple: Batman is a hero, and heroes don't kill. Of course, that has become ethically harder to swallow as the Joker (and countless other villains) have escaped time and again to terrorize the innocents of Gotham, and Batman's inability to put a permanent stop to their rampages makes him arguably complicit in their crimes. But therein lies the great internal struggle, which has allowed this character -- and others like him -- to continue a successful serialized career for more than 60 years now.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 08, 2008 at 1:16am
No I think the reason why comics like Batman have "continue[d] a successful serialized career for more than 60 years now" is that they have had solid, engrossing stories. This wasn't - unlike a number of recent comic-based movies. As an IMDB commenter pointed out the movie "was created for shock value instead for entertainment".
The question of killing the Joker only marginally related to Batman. From the opening bank job scene it was clear that he would have threats from his own insane - and like himself, inexplicably competent - henchmen. Then there was the helpful warning from the bank manager - "Do you know whose money this is?!! ".
With regard to Ledger's performance as The New Republic's Christopher Orr pointed out "it's hard not to view it as sign or symptom of the subsequent tragedy". That as a consequence this incoherent and violent movie has been intensely hyped is a shame. That his performance is being lionized is simply sad.
Like this Movie? You can Favorite it on your Profile.
User Reviews of REVIEW: "The Dark Knight" (6)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these reviews. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove reviews at their discretion.
thomas pappas said on Jul. 29, 2008 at 9:19am
Saw it last night in Ithaca....where the seats rumbled seemingly from below as the Batman's motorcycle darted in and out of traffic. This movie should have been 30+minutes shorter. The story was for me too complex. Heath Ledger was great as Osama Bin Laden....the ineptitude of the police and regular Gothamites mirror all of us in our struggle w/ al qaeda. GG is too kind to this movie........where does the Joker get the time to plant explosives in such quantity to destroy hospitals and large ferry boats? And how does a "skinny little" guy lift all those giant fuel drums, in secret, into the holds of those ships? Wouldn't somebody notice a guy w/ a lot of bad makeup struggling w/ them? I know he's angry from a bad childhood, and that can release adrenaline, but c'mon.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 04, 2008 at 1:17am
I can't access Grella's review of Dark Knight. I thought this was a horrible movie. In order to be effective this type of movie needs some credibility. The actions and accomplishments of the Joker were probably 1000 times beyond a meaningful threshold of credibility. All apparently carried out by someone who abhors planning and uses insane henchmen. This might be an understatement as I left with 45 minutes to go.
As a minute example, the beating that Batman gave the Joker in the interrogation room would have broken bones as well as knocked him out. Yet the physically uninspiring Joker showed absolutely no affect. This compared to the realism they have tried to place with Batman who shows regular injuries in spite of armor.
The sad fate of Heath Ledger has probably left his role immensely overrated. He apparently went to great lengths to prepare for this insane role which was probably an unhealthy thing to do.
Max said on Dec. 04, 2008 at 5:28pm
Boy, when I watch movies, especially ones based on comic books, I really analyze the realism. For example, X-Men, or Incredible Hulk, or even Hell Boy!!
You both are taking this movie, way, way too seriously. Re watch the movie, not analyzing it's realism, and it's apparent that it is one of the better action movies Hollywood has produced in a long while.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 05, 2008 at 12:44am
Comparisons to the three movies you named aren't really relevant. Batman doesn't involve supernatural powers, this in the past has helped it offer some additional meaning to us mortals. The only mind-numbing meaning I found in the movie I found myself murmuring repeatedly, 'Just kill the guy (and end the movie)'.
As one reviewer commented 'This was the least credible villain I've ever seen'. I would add it was one of the least meaningful movies I've seen in a long time (with a sad backdrop of Ledger's fate). Did the Joker at any time display his trademark humor?
As for action content, admittedly modern Hollywood movies have so many camera switches - as with The Bourne Ultimatum - that whatever the stunt people are doing is difficult to appreciate anyway and in this context perhaps The Dark Knight shines.
If you want to see some critical takes on TDK including the action content (from those who saw the whole thing), you might check here
www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/usercomments?filter=hate;start=0
Eric said on Dec. 05, 2008 at 1:37am
As someone who has read comics -- including Batman comics -- for more than 20 years, I found Ledger's portrayal of the Joker to be very consistent with some of the more modern takes on the character. The criticism that he didn't display any of his trademark humor really just points to a lack of understanding about the character: the Joker isn't supposed to be funny. He's supposed to be insane, an agent of chaos, which is what makes him a perfect foil for the equally mentally disturbed Batman, whose is relentless in his quest is to impose order. The gags that were the hallmark of the character in portrayals ranging from Cesar Romero to Jack Nicholson have no place in a post-modern, post-ironic context, which is absolutely what Nolan and company were going for (and, I would argue, achieved). The Joker in "Dark Knight" isn't meant to be silly or campy. He's there to represent something Batman can't hope to ever truly stop: someone who destroys without reason, whose only point in life is to f**k stuff up because he's f**ked up.
As for why Batman just doesn't kill him and get it over with, that's something comic fans have been asking for decades. The answer is fairly simple: Batman is a hero, and heroes don't kill. Of course, that has become ethically harder to swallow as the Joker (and countless other villains) have escaped time and again to terrorize the innocents of Gotham, and Batman's inability to put a permanent stop to their rampages makes him arguably complicit in their crimes. But therein lies the great internal struggle, which has allowed this character -- and others like him -- to continue a successful serialized career for more than 60 years now.
Ted Christopher said on Dec. 08, 2008 at 1:16am
No I think the reason why comics like Batman have "continue[d] a successful serialized career for more than 60 years now" is that they have had solid, engrossing stories. This wasn't - unlike a number of recent comic-based movies. As an IMDB commenter pointed out the movie "was created for shock value instead for entertainment".
The question of killing the Joker only marginally related to Batman. From the opening bank job scene it was clear that he would have threats from his own insane - and like himself, inexplicably competent - henchmen. Then there was the helpful warning from the bank manager - "Do you know whose money this is?!! ".
With regard to Ledger's performance as The New Republic's Christopher Orr pointed out "it's hard not to view it as sign or symptom of the subsequent tragedy". That as a consequence this incoherent and violent movie has been intensely hyped is a shame. That his performance is being lionized is simply sad.
Leave A Review