FILM: The Dark Knight (2008)

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

For me, it really falls apart at the end. The ferryboat thing seemed completely out of character for the Joker, the cell phone sonar was fucking stupid. Pretty much once Harvey becomes a ridiculous stupid looking computer enhanced character, it's all downhill aside from some Heath and Zimmer moments.

[John 2,032]

Yeah the whole ordeal with the two ferries (presumably staffed by crew that operate daily) doesn't make much sense. Same with the hospital rigged with explosives. Really? No one noticed the Joker's goons planting them throughout the building?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Also really couldn't stand the ridiculous scene where a convict throws the detonator out the window. I think it was supposed to be dramatic and unexpected, but I was like, what if that sets off the explosives??

[Chen G. 3,943]

I actually really, really like that beat. Such an expression of humanity in such an unlikely place. Love it!

 

Although I do think that - as with so many of Nolan's films - there are too many moving parts in the climax, pilled ontop of one another.

[crocodile 7,984]

10 hours ago, John said:

Yeah the whole ordeal with the two ferries (presumably staffed by crew that operate daily) doesn't make much sense. Same with the hospital rigged with explosives. Really? No one noticed the Joker's goons planting them throughout the building?

What if the staff were goons?

 

Karol

[Incanus 5,713]

13 minutes ago, crocodile said:

What if the staff were goons?

 

Karol

I am sure they had a strict no-goon policy there.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I saw The Dark Knight last night and thought it was pretty darn good, all things considering. It seems that most of the complaints are coming from a logistical standpoint (i.e. How did this character do that? It's impossible!), expecting the film to embrace reality and conform to it as the viewer may expect. Are people really not that attuned to these types of movies to realize that these inconsistencies, so to speak, in the plot are commonplace in this part of the industry, and should hardly take away from the other aspects of the film which The Dark Knight otherwise executes very well? Hence the emphasis on SUPERhero and SUPERvillain- they're not just random schmoes. Of course, that doesn't make these characters omnipotent or omniscient, although it can sometimes feel that way. But at the same time, we see very human flaws and relatable attributes.  

 

As for the rest of my thoughts, I'm going to ramble a bit.

 

Joker is such a compelling character that he's featured in the two best Batman movies through two ridiculously good performances. Don't worry, you can like both at the same time. You don't need to pick a favourite. Nicholson and Ledger both offer something a little different. With Nicholson, you can laugh along too, because he makes it funny. With Ledger, it's disturbing because he thinks its funny and we don't, making the performance even harder to forget because of it. 

 

As a result, the Batmans in every Joker-featuring installment take the back seat, but boy oh boy we only ever see Batman, if you get my meaning. Bruce Wayne is hardly present in this film, and even when he is he's wearing part of the costume or he's about to suit up. Plus, as some have noted, the crucial relationship with Alfred is pushed aside. 

 

Of course, the question "Who is Batman?" is the central character journey for this film (both for the people of Gotham and for Wayne himself), and this is certainly a question that opens up some brooding and inner-conflicting emotions with Bruce. 

 

The supporting cast is almost effortless, between Oldman, Freeman, Caine and Eckhart (some more than others).

 

And yes, it can be overly talk-y, and if anything that is where it's weakness lies. Not everything needs to be explained, and not everything needs to be explained multiple times. The embracement of longs periods of silence and audiences being left to interpret situations through visuals is truly refreshing, but we don't get that sort of thing here. It's like with Interstellar, which could've been another 2001: A Space Odyssey if they'd have shut up and trimmed things down a tad. 

 

I digress. I quite enjoyed The Dark Knight, as far as superhero films go. 

 

***** out of *****

[John 2,032]

It’s too long and messily structured. And there’s precious little genuine human moments throughout its runtime. 

 

As for the Joker, a comment on Reddit quite succinctly summarized my thoughts on him as a character:

 

Quote

The Joker as a character is like tofu. He takes on, at any given moment, whatever the story needs him to be. Most of the time he's used as a convenient writing tool to say something about Batman, rather than being a real character unto himself. Because he essentially isn't a character: He has no arcs, and his actions aren't motivated by personal interest. They don't serve any purpose other than to mess with Batman, making him essentially, selfless. 

 

Basically, he exists as a character only to prove Batman right.

 

Batman embodies A, Joker embodies B; they fight, Batman wins, therefore A is correct.

[Chen G. 3,943]

But what are the best villains if not the antithesis of the hero? Someone who strikes at the very core of what the hero is?

 

A character - certainly a villain - doesn't necessarily need an arc to be compelling.

[John 2,032]

Perhaps if the rest of the film surrounding the Joker was better, I would be more forgiving of my issues with the character. 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Last night was The Dark Knight Rises, and that really took a poor turn at the end IMO. And Bane is hardly as interesting as most of the other DC villains.

[A24 4,326]

On 6/17/2019 at 9:09 PM, The Illustrious Jerry said:

Not everything needs to be explained, and not everything needs to be explained multiple times.

 

His fans need it.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

It would seem so. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I rate it higher than John. Bu this is not a perfect film. The score is atrocious. Zimmer is simple incapable of making music I like. He does on rare occasions makes me feel that its okay. He is not talented. Not in the ways Williams, Goldsmith, and Hoerner are or were. Its a shame that two faced is overlooked due to the Jokers mesmerizing performance. Aaron Eckart is near brilliant. Dark Knight is better than either ot its bookends.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

I can agree with a lot of your points. Two-Face is sadly stuck in the long-casting shadow of the brilliant Joker. Han's Zimmer's score is "effective" in film, but it is pretty tough on the album, as is often the case. And yes, The Dark Knight is better than its bookends, but it's not a perfect film. It's just pretty darn good, even with flaws.

[John 2,032]

Two-Faces’ villainy is one of the weakest aspects of the movie for me. His fall from grace is neither convincing nor compelling. The film is simply too overstuffed to give his arc much time to breathe. 

 

Eckhart’s performance is fine overall, but becomes increasingly hammy as the film nears its decidedly anticlimactic climax. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

I kind of see the point there. I think Two-Face works, but there comes a point where his deeds are intercut with the Joker, the two ferries, etcetra - its too much going on at the same time.

 

As for Eckhart's performance, I think both him and Nolan - in a largely practical production - had a problem in coming to grips with the digital Two-face. I always get an uncanny-valley feeling about Two-Face and its not the quality of the CGI.

 

In one viewing, I went through the exercise of hiding the burnt side of his face with my hand, so as to focus on the expression on the other side, and that's when I got it: Eckhart just isn't pulling expressions that are really that angry-looking or threatening. It seems that, on set, both he and Nolan were reliant on the CG makeup to highten his performance after the fact, and make him menacing, and it does - but only on half his face.

[John 2,032]

I think the CGI is actually quite seamless, especially for 2008, though I’ve always felt the concept of this man with half his face burnt off and not being crippled by blinding pain a bit silly. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

Again, the CGI isn't the issue.

 

Its that Eckhart and Nolan seem to have had difficulty knowing how to dial-in the performance to accomodate for the CGI. As a result, even in scenes where he's meant to be angry, only the scarred side of his face really looks that.

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

As a result, even in scenes where he's meant to be angry, only the scarred side of his face really looks that.

Exactly, because the audience is focusing on that as it is, so it would seem Eckhart and Nolan went for a half-job, expecting the other half to go unnoticed (which to many casual filmgoers it probably did!).

 

But yes, Two-Face is a bit of a throw-in figure here. In a film where the Joker takes so much precedence, as he should (plus, the performance doesn't really allow for anyone else to stand out in the same way), Two-Face is a backseat antagonist who's never really developed into anything more than a secondary character with a vendetta. His crimes are not even as large scale as any other villain in the trilogy, simply because there's no time and space. Eckhart was just fine, and his positioning as a forgotten pawn of sorts is unfair as a result. 

 

1 hour ago, John said:

I think the CGI is actually quite seamless, especially for 2008, though I’ve always felt the concept of this man with half his face burnt off and not being crippled by blinding pain a bit silly. 

Yeah, I mean, what the heck? Clearly Eckhart should have dawned the white Phantom mask and sported a black cape, but we'd probably be looking at two minutes longer runtime just to see him gear up this way in a dramatic ceremony that sees him forget all good and seek vengeance on those who he blames for Rachel's death.

 

But really, the expectation of many people that I know is that every detail and plot point of movies should be closer aligned to reality, otherwise it's just plain stupid. It kind of defeats the purpose of creativity, imagination, and fantastical storytelling, and while there is a line, there are many people who get over-focused on little things they deem "impossible" or "highly unlikely". There are loads of people that tell me about movies they've seen, and they always complain about how terrible it was because, "This happened, and Person A did that. That could've never happened in real life- it's just unbelievable. It was a poor movie.". 

 

Anyways...

[Chen G. 3,943]

I don't mind the inclusion of two-face, because he's integral to the climax, and his journey is thematically significant.

 

I do think all three of these films struggle with what's an admittedly difficult issue: how can you tell a story about a hero that doesn't kill, and still make the deaths of the villains (Ras Al-Ghoul, Two-Face, Bane, Talia) feel visually satisfying?

 

I don't think Nolan ever cracked that nut.

 

Another one of my issues with these films is scale: Nolan seems almost trapped in Gotham, so much so that in every one of these films, he has at least one excursion to another abroad location. I think it works more seamlessly in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises than it does here.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

It's been a couple of years since I've rewatched this, but I remember being surprised at just how short most of the film's scenes are. It just jumps around so often, I feel like the building dread that is established in the opening bank robbery is never quite recovered again. The whole heist in Hong Kong seems airlifted in from an entirely different film as well.

[John 2,032]

11 hours ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

But really, the expectation of many people that I know is that every detail and plot point of movies should be closer aligned to reality, otherwise it's just plain stupid. It kind of defeats the purpose of creativity, imagination, and fantastical storytelling, and while there is a line, there are many people who get over-focused on little things they deem "impossible" or "highly unlikely". 

 

It clashes with the tone the rest of the film is trying to establish, methinks.

 

Had his character and condition existed in a sci-fi/fantasy film, like a Marvel flick, it would be excusable and understandable. But in an uber-serious, grounded and realistic crime film? Not so much. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

7 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

The whole heist in Hong Kong seems airlifted in from an entirely different film as well.

 

My point exactly. Its just Nolan's sense of scale being too confined within New York (ehm...I mean, Gotham) so - in every one of these three films - he has one sequence staged elsewhere.

 

In Batman Begins, it works because Bruce is in self-imposed exile. In The Dark Knight Rises it works, because he is incarcerated by Bane. Here - its just here to give the film a globetrotting feel.

 

Its really not a big issue (I stand by my ***** rating) but its certainly noticable. I'm thinking along this guy's line:

 

 

[Trent B 337]

Probably made The Dark Knight so "special" is because of Heath Ledger as The Joker.  I do like The Dark Knight and thought Ledger is the best Joker.  To me The Dark Knight Rises is definitely the best Nolan Batman film.

Edit: I don't agree with Angry Video Game Nerd's opinion on The Matrix. For me it never gets old. However I do agree with the bullet time thing that got old fast.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think Ledger is a great Joker. 

I also think Jack is a great Joker. 

I don't have to decide who is better because I like both and have both films. 

[Chen G. 3,943]

35 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

I don't have to decide who is better because I like both and have both films. 

 

 That's the right approach, I think.

 

Two different takes on a similar story. Each enjoyable on its own, and not really comparable to the other.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Yes. I look at Burton's film as fantasy and Nolans as a weird crime drama

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I like how it delivered on its promise in the title that there was plenty of dark night time scenes.

 

Seeing Batman out in the daylight in the third one was just weird.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Why did Bruce Wayne train to be a swordfighter in the first movie? Does training with a sword prepare you to not use a sword when you become a masked vigilante?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You learn to use a sword, so you know that you should not use a sword!

 

It's part of Batman's ninja training.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

That makes a lot of sense.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

On 7/1/2019 at 6:20 AM, Stefancos said:

You learn to use a sword, so you know that you should not use a sword!

 

It's part of Batman's ninja training.

So, Steef...you're saying that Batman is ironic?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No, not at all. 

[Ollie 1,059]

I actually enjoyed this film greatly upon its release, although I felt the Harvey Dent /Two Face resolution was rushed. Aside from the criticism of Bale's Batman, which I agree with, I thought this was a well done film. Ledger is excellent and I would have loved to have seen Dent's Two Face character carry over to another film. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I really want to trade in my Batman trilogy as i have no desire to watch them again.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

On 7/7/2019 at 7:35 PM, El Jefe said:

I actually enjoyed this film greatly upon its release, although I felt the Harvey Dent /Two Face resolution was rushed.

 

Agreed!

[A24 4,326]

And so late into the game ... As if they were merely warming up the audience for an upcoming Two-Face movie. Although .. I think the character's role in the film was meant to illustrate how the world was changing and that it needed Batman now more than ever.  After all, TDK is a movie about moral questions (maybe even blatantly so).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

A bit too blatantly perhaps. 

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The ending is just too misanthropic.

[John 2,032]

Oldman’s final lines are cringeworthy. 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

80s fetishists complained movies like this were too cynical and nihilistic on release.  Now even Nolan's brand of stoic heroism is thought cringey?  Art doesn't date, audiences do.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

From this...

On 6/24/2019 at 4:32 PM, JoeinAR said:

I think Ledger is a great Joker. 

I also think Jack is a great Joker. 

I don't have to decide who is better because I like both and have both films. 

 

...to this...

On 7/8/2019 at 4:05 PM, JoeinAR said:

I really want to trade in my Batman trilogy as i have no desire to watch them again.

in the space of a few days? What happened, Joe?

[A24 4,326]

You can have them both! I'm waiting for my Joker. 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

But he's just a raggedy man!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

On 7/14/2019 at 11:29 AM, Alexcremers said:

You can have them both! I'm waiting for my Joker. 

 

 

Cesar Romero?

[John 2,032]

Everyone in this movie has too much hair. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Is there anyone in TDK who is bald? It's like Christopher Nolan has something against balding...maybe because of his odd receding hairline.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The big black guy was bald!

[mrbellamy 6,272]

On 8/5/2019 at 12:31 AM, Dieter Stark said:

Is there anyone in TDK who is bald? It's like Christopher Nolan has something against balding...maybe because of his odd receding hairline.

 

Male pattern baldness in cinema is about as rare as chest hair on leading men these days. Young to middle-aged men in movies/TV either have a full head of hair or are completely bald/shaved. At most a guy under 50 might be stylishly receding in the front. Thinning on top or a bald spot are reserved for fat people and the elderly.