I didn't get a manage to see this on the big screen but recently got a chance to see it in HD in the comfort of my own home, my thoughts follow.

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is a very hard film to enjoy.

It's also a film with which it is hard not to be impressed, at least in parts. In fact there are parts of The Dark Knight which are as well made as any mainstream movie I've ever seen but these rare fragments are held together by a solvent which is not up to the job.

What the film lacks most; the one element that is conspicuous by its absence in almost every scene is subtlety. It's apparent from the very first few lines of dialogue to the very last and the only aspect to escape relatively unscathed is the very notable performance of Heath Ledger.

Whilst the plaudits for Ledgers work in the film have been massively overblown he is by quite some distance the best thing in the film - it's just a shame that this isn't saying quite as much as it should do. There are loud echoes of Kevin Spacey's 'John Doe' from Seven in what Ledger brings to the role and this reflects that The Joker in The Dark Knight is a far more conventional villain than the last time we saw the character on the big screen. Some may think it irrelevant to compare 'Batman' and 'The Dark Knight' but this is untrue. The films share far more common elements than the names of a few characters and as such refusing a comparison would be small minded.

But I digress...

Whereas Jack Nicholson's incarnation was an unpredictable lunatic, Ledgers is a far more thoughtful and calculated antagonist. The Joker here has a plan for chaos and if that sounds to you like a contradiction then you'd be absolutely correct and as a result of this and other similar factors the character never quite rounds out properly. It's not a case that there are too many questions leading to vague character but rather that there are too many answers which instead leads to an uninteresting one. But this is a problem that extends to every character in the piece just as it did previously in Batman Begins. In the case of Ledgers character, as with every aspect of every character in both films, nothing is left unexplained - even the fact that our Joker has no real name or previous life is painstakingly laid before us.

This ceaseless alliteration of every nuance of every character and plot point is a massive part of what makes it so hard to enjoy The Dark Knight. Everything takes so much time to explain that the film never has a chance to gain any momentum. There is an ocean of difference between a slow film and a thoughtful one, sadly The Dark Knight falls resoundingly under the former heading.

In addition to laboriously drawn main characters there are an abundance of secondary players who suffer a similar fate; none of them are very interesting but all of which are given exhaustive screen time. There is so much gorging on the unnecessary details that the film gets bogged down by them drags its bloated belly through the dramatic elements until it's time for the next set piece... which brings us to another problem: Christopher Nolan can't direct action.

In Batman Begins the action sequences were so badly constructed that it was actually impossible to grasp what was supposed to be happening. Whilst Nolan's first trip to Gotham is not the only modern action movie to suffer from this A.D.D. approach to action editing it was arguably the worst offender by virtue of the decision to shoot all the scenes by candlelight.

In The Dark Knight Nolan appears to have been bitten by the over compensation bug. Each action sequence lacks both style and pace, the fights seem to be aiming for the realistic brutality of the kind we saw executed so brilliantly in Casino Royale but they never come close to that viscerality and even worse are the driving sequences, all of which are entirely devoid of any sense of speed or drama.

And so it goes on... the film is exhaustive but fragmented, it's desire to be clever renders it simplistic, it's big set pieces come across as painfully small and it's deep characters are mind numbingly shallow.

Nothing works as it should but despite this there are a few successful moments.

The snatch of Lau from his building in China is so full of great ideas that it overcomes the heavy direction and the pedantic set up.

Another plus point is Gary Oldman who is strong enough to make the often clunky dialogue seem better than it is and he certainly gets better service than fellow old schooler Michael Caine who is lumbered with some 'wise old mentor' lines so painful that they would make Mr Miagi wince.

To return to my earlier point about the similarities between this and Tim Burton's movie we have to consider how both depict the relationship between Batman and The Joker. The common thread is the notion that The Joker and Batman are as similar as they are different, two sides of the same coin if you'll permit a sly reference to the otherwise not-worth-mentioning Harvey Dent/Two Face character. But this ambiguous yet symbiotic existence of good and evil was far better delivered back in 1989.

For this conceit to work the two characters need to share a duality but Nolan's take on the Joker has but the one dimension and his Batman and Bruce Wayne and too far removed from each other to portray any believable schizoid overtones. In comparison to Keaton's tortured soul and Nicholson's tortured psyche this conflict is flat and emotionally bereft.

It is worth pointing out, however, that Jack Nicholson was sparring with the talent of Michael Keaton and poor old Heath Ledger gets to show up the personality vacuum that is Christian Bale. Bale delivers a take on Bruce Wayne who is as smug and unlikeable as Keaton's was self effacing and funny.

Bale fails entirely to bring any of the duality and confliction to the Wayne character and his lack of talent has never been more apparent than it is in the company of Oldman and Ledger.

Much like many of today's blockbuster movies (I'm put most in mind of 2005's Mission Impossible III) the level of production of The Dark Knight is often high enough to conceal its faults but it cannot hide the fact the film is lost within itself. It knows not what it is or what it wants to be. It is obsessed with vocalising the uninteresting and providing answers to questions that no-one asked. But most disappointing of all is the realisation that The Dark Knight rehashes several ideas from an almost 20 year old movie and fails to do them any justice at all.

hm, well this film is not a remake, it's a completely different take on the joker, so you can't really compare this with the first one.

It hasn't come out on video yet, how the hell did you watch it at home?

qbert4ever:
It hasn't come out on video yet, how the hell did you watch it at home?

Vidjo you say? Calm down gramps ;) but seriously I agree. Its out on the 8th december and its currently the fourth; do I smell piracy?

As for the review I couldn't help but feel you were trying to write a negative review just to piss off the fans nevertheless its a well spaced, well punctuated and as far as I can see grammatically correct attack; well done.

Personally I loved the film but I agree that batman himself left a lot to be desired even if he does have an amazing voice. The joker I thought was great and very true to his comical (is that the right word? If so I made an accidental pun please forgive me :S) and then theres also the fact its heath's last film and hollywood likes to give its heroes a good send off....

Personally I felt Dent's transformation was very, very well done and I know that it actualy shocked a few of my friends for whom the name "Harvey Dent" hadn't rang any bells. I also agree that the film lacked any clear focus and seemed to make random jumps from time to time and yes was too long.

Scorched_Cascade:

As for the review I couldn't help but feel you were trying to write a negative review just to piss off the fans

If it had been positive would you have said it was that way just to jump on the band-wagon?

JaguarWong:

Scorched_Cascade:

As for the review I couldn't help but feel you were trying to write a negative review just to piss off the fans

If it had been positive would you have said it was that way just to jump on the band-wagon?

No but in my opinion a good review doesn't actualy show an author's opinion till the very end and until that time is a neutral weighing up of pros and cons.

JaguarWong:

Scorched_Cascade:

As for the review I couldn't help but feel you were trying to write a negative review just to piss off the fans

If it had been positive would you have said it was that way just to jump on the band-wagon?

Actually at the Escapist the Band Wagon seems to be hatred of something popular rather than the reverse. Thanks to Yahtzee many feel we aren't allowed to enjoy things anymore.

You know what I'd like?

I'd like people to be as constructive in their criticisms as I've taken the time and effort to be.

Is that too much to ask?

JaguarWong:
You know what I'd like?

I'd like people to be as constructive in their criticisms as I've taken the time and to be.

Is that too much to ask?

I thought I was being constructive? Three paragraphs and no overly harsh attacks?

Scorched_Cascade:

I thought I was being constructive? Three paragraphs and no overly harsh attacks?

Apologies for lumping you in with the trolls.

Thoughts?

I disagree with your opinions on this film sir!

Yet this review definately outlines your criticisms well, I well understand your point and your writing is excellent. Definately an A+ Review.

Thanks mate, appreciate that.

Glad you enjoyed the movie.

I think your review is incredibly well written. Explaining and arguing your points well. Whilst I don't agree with your opinion (2nd best film of 2008) I can't fault your reviewing style. Don't let this lot bring you down, keep it up!

Umm, I've had this DVD for nearly a week.

Also, the movie was fine in all respects. Comparing it to Tim Burton's movie is pretty sleazy since Burton had a lot less to deal with. Remember, just one villian, one romance, and 3 actions scenes in Batman. You need to double nearly everything in the Dark Knight. 2 Villains, 2 Romances, 5 actions scenes, plus a criminal underworld subplot.

Batman Returns is a little closer, but when Cristopher Walken is the least talented actor in your cast and you have a giant army of animatronic penguins, most of the work is done for you.

It's probably more fair to to compare Dark Knight to the Schumacher films, where it's head and shoulders above the wretched competition

Was it too much? Maybe, but I'll afford Nolan some credit for being ambitious and also paying homage to the Long Hallowe'en

Crunchy English:
Umm, I've had this DVD for nearly a week.

Still waiting to hear how you two pulled that off, short of illegal activity.

Also, I disagree with the review, in pretty much all points. Not to say it's a bad review, but you seem to fall into the trap of trying to tell me how I should feel, instead of how you feel. Case in point, you talk about the driving portions saying "...all of which are entirely devoid of any sense of speed or drama."

That right there puts me on the defense, wanting nothing more then to smack you across the face and declare you retarded. Not a good thing. This is bad enough in a review of something that many people have very different opinions on, but for something (such as TDK) where 99.999 percent of people agree that it kicks ass, you saying it in this way gives it an "I'm right you're wrong" tone.

qbert4ever:

Crunchy English:
Umm, I've had this DVD for nearly a week.

Still waiting to hear how you two pulled that off, short of illegal activity.

Also, I disagree with the review, in pretty much all points. Not to say it's a bad review, but you seem to fall into the trap of trying to tell me how I should feel, instead of how you feel. Case in point, you talk about the driving portions saying "...all of which are entirely devoid of any sense of speed or drama."

That right there puts me on the defense, wanting nothing more then to smack you across the face and declare you retarded. Not a good thing. This is bad enough in a review of something that many people have very different opinions on, but for something (such as TDK) where 99.999 percent of people agree that it kicks ass, you saying it in this way gives it an "I'm right you're wrong" tone.

I'm so confused. I work in a video game store, we've had a copy of the movie on the shelf for rent for about a week now. I mean, I had a bootleg copy TOO, and I saw it in theatres. But I also own a legitimate copy I got at blockbuster down the street.

Crunchy English:
I'm so confused. I work in a video game store, we've had a copy of the movie on the shelf for rent for about a week now. I mean, I had a bootleg copy TOO, and I saw it in theatres. But I also own a legitimate copy I got at blockbuster down the street.

Just checking, you don't happen to live in the future by about a week or so, do you?

qbert4ever:
It hasn't come out on video yet, how the hell did you watch it at home?

uuummm.... bootleg? I know plenty of people that have done it though I don't watch them because they have shitty quality. (I watched Star Wars Episode 3 bootleg and some movie that really sucked that I totally can't remember but the quality was so horrid that I went to watch it at the movies anyway.)

qbert4ever:

Crunchy English:
I'm so confused. I work in a video game store, we've had a copy of the movie on the shelf for rent for about a week now. I mean, I had a bootleg copy TOO, and I saw it in theatres. But I also own a legitimate copy I got at blockbuster down the street.

Just checking, you don't happen to live in the future by about a week or so, do you?

Does Canada count?

I was fortunate enough to see this movie in the theater on opening weekend (at like 10 PM on sunday)...

I've got to disagree with what you said about the movie being simplistic. I didn't find one thing, other than the joker, to be simplistic about it, just like most of Nolan's films. There is more to be found underneath the initial plot.

I agree with what some people are saying. You can't really compare the two jokers because they are very different from one another. Ledger's joker is just a catalyst to the story who's only real purpose in the movie is to fuck things up for Wayne and Dent. He was never meant to be some deep character the people were to ponder. Like Alfred says in the movie "Some men just wanna watch the world burn." The Joker's motives are all explained with that one line. He was just there to shake things up. The Burton Joker was really the star of the movie who laughed and giggled his way into the heart of the Gotham crime scene. He was pissed at batman for ruining him and knocking him into those chemicals.

You also can't really compare the old batman movies to the dark knight because, once again, they are very different movies. Dark Knight is a more realistic take on batman where as the Burton movies were not so much realistic. The Burton movies were a more Gothic take on Batman.

Comparing Keaton to Bale wasn't a good idea either because, as i've said twice already, the two movies are very different from one another. Keaton's Wayne was witty and somewhat funny while Bale is an unlikable arrogant ass. Since the Dark Knight is trying to be more realistic, obviously Wayne is going to be an ass because millionaires are assholes.

I think the point i'm trying to make here is that the Burton batman movies and the Nolan batman movies are totally different flicks and they really shouldn't be compared. It's like comparing the old Nightmare On Elm Street movies and the Friday the 13th movie to something like Freddy VS Jason. You just were never meant to make those comparisons, even though people were already going to do it anyway.

YES! YES! I completely agree with you! I mean the OP...

LesIsMore:
Sir: I take issue with your claim and believe you are a knob.

of butter

Also Hearth Ledger's Joker was WAAAAY more mental than Tim Burton's joker, just like he should be...

Having your face burnt with acid by your nemesis is going to make you at least a little bit quirky

Cheesebob:

LesIsMore:
Sir: I take issue with your claim and believe you are a knob.

of butter

Also Hearth Ledger's Joker was WAAAAY more mental than Tim Burton's joker, just like he should be...

Having your face burnt with acid by your nemesis is going to make you at least a little bit quirky

That's kinda the whole point I was trying to make about the two jokers. Burton's joker is out for revenge against batman for messing him up while Nolan's joker is just in it for the kicks...which is WAY freakier than anything else

MrBrightside919:

I agree with what some people are saying. You can't really compare the two jokers because they are very different from one another.

And yet you're going to anyway...

Ledger's joker is just a catalyst to the story who's only real purpose in the movie is to fuck things up for Wayne and Dent. He was never meant to be some deep character the people were to ponder. Like Alfred says in the movie "Some men just wanna watch the world burn." The Joker's motives are all explained with that one line. He was just there to shake things up. The Burton Joker was really the star of the movie who laughed and giggled his way into the heart of the Gotham crime scene. He was pissed at batman for ruining him and knocking him into those chemicals.

See?

You also can't really compare the old batman movies to the dark knight because, once again, they are very different movies. Dark Knight is a more realistic take on batman where as the Burton movies were not so much realistic. The Burton movies were a more Gothic take on Batman.

What the heck is up with this 'you can't compare' business? They're both batman films that, broadly speaking, cover the same story. Yes, they're very different in execution, but surely that in itself makes for the better comparison?

Anyway, good review. Have yet to see the film in question, so I shall reserve my personal opinion until I get the dvd.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Anyway, good review. Have yet to see the film in question, so I shall reserve my personal opinion until I get the dvd.

Wait, you didn't see it in theaters?

People like you are the reason Titanic is still #1 at the box office. You, my friend, are going to that special Hell normally reserved for baby-rapists and people who write checks for anything when a credit or debit card would do just fine. Repent now, sinner. And you may just avoid the most searing flames.

``The Joker has a plan for chaos´´ i liked that line.

And everyone who says that the Joker just did the things according to the situation and all that, the fat guy with the bomb and the fiber wires to crash the police helicopters, or the bombs on the ferrys arent stuff that can be made in 2 hours or so.

The Joker just wanted to fuck up the city, but he had plans for that.

I watched the dark knight four times so my bias will be overwhelming, however; I feel that you are attacking this movie for the point of attacking in that all of your evidence is subjective to your own opinion of the acting and writing. While there is no problem with this if you are going to take this method you should attempt to relate to the story as anyone can call the acting in Citizen Kane over te top and poorly paced.

Rather than tear you apart for it I will help you with attacking the actual plot which is what everyone else was watching while you were looking down on the movie as a whole causing you to miss the entire point of Harvey Dent. "Not worth mentioning", the fall of Harvey Dent was only the entire point of the movie.

(WARNING SPOILERS) Legitimate failings of the Dark Knight: (WARNING SPOILERS)
1) The indestructibility of the Joker; he manages to sit inside the driver's seat of a truck when it flips and get out unscathed. He also causes a bomb in the police department to go off killing everyone around him but leaving him once again untouched.

2) The Joker's plan to escape from the police department. If we are to believe Gordon in that The Joker planned on getting caught we would have to believe that he somehow planned on upsetting Batman enough to throw him into the glass, with enough force to break off a shard large enough to use as a weapon to take the cop hostage when he demands a phone call. If Batman had simply punched the crap out of the Joker he never would have escaped.

3) There is a massive military presence searching for bombs all over the bridge out of the city yet no one took the time to check the two ferries before they left the port.

4) How did the Joker escape from Bruce Wayne's party after he throws Rachel out of the window; surely Batman could just get off the crushed car he landed on and wait at the entrance before the Joker's elevator reached the ground floor.

5) The Joker's entire plan came down to Harvey Dent not shooting him when he gave Harvey the gun and for the coin toss to land on heads when Harvey flipped the coin. I know the Joker was meant to be chaotic but that was just stupid.

qbert4ever:
You, my friend, are going to that special Hell normally reserved for baby-rapists and people who write checks for anything when a credit or debit card would do just fine.

"And people who talk at the theatre."