Theatrical Review of The Dark Knight

Great review Jason! I agree with what you posted. I do feel that the character devolpment was a bit quick, especially that of Harvey Dent. Going back to those good ole comic book days, Harvey last quite a bit longer, but who's counting. The storyline in the movie never did truly stop, and that's honestly what I really enjoyed about it. There was a new peice moving all the time. In essence, when you feature a film at 157 mins, I can see why. The audience, didn't really want that break at 1 or 2 or 2:45 in the morning!! I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you have a feature this long, it is not nessisarily a bad thing. The viewer will never get bored, and holy crap sure has a lot to talk about, and the temptation is mounting to go see it again next week! Crap, I saw Revenge of the Sith three times before it hit DVD!!! Twice in the Regular admittion, and once in the cheap seats! I'm thursting this one again. X2 was another movie I saw twice in theatres. Superman, I can honestly say I never saw in the theatre, but bought the HD DVD, and Spiderman 2 was not that great, and waited for the second showing on DVD. Anyways Great Review, and I loved this Movie. I'm DYING to see the NEXT ONE!!!

yeah that movie was awesome!!! Bale was great to, but ledger performace was outstanding, i hope it at least gets looked at come award time. awesome movie

Spidey 2 wasn't that great? Most would say that SM2 is the movie that TDK dethroned.

http://hddvdreviews.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-is.html

depression: i think that the "spider-man" movies are rather over-rated. the CGI in part two was laughably bad (especially the final sequence with spidey swinging next to two helicopters). kirsten dunst is cute, but she looks like she's bored in these kinds of movies.

best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jul 19, 2008]

Spidey 2 was decent but, Doc Oct's CGI looked like some bad ass 1980's cheesy film overdubs... Heavily formented hair on your tougue after a hard night of drinking. The tenticles, were just as bad as King Kongs battle with T-Rex!!! That was really shitty!

Iron Man may have follow comic book legendary, but failed "In my mind" To WOO the film industry. It was lacking something. I don't know, Intrigue? It wasn't my first choice, but it was good, but didn't woo me...

I have yet to see the second version of Hulk, but I hear it is good. the first one may have followed a lot of the same principle of the story line, but bored me to tears! So I will give the second Hulk a second chance, once it hits DVD.

I'm surprised Jason wasn't put off by the "anti-psychotic" and "anti-crime" messages of the film. . .but then that would mean he was taking a plot device too seriously. It's not like that's ever happened before, like, say, in a movie that featured an earth that was COVERED IN TRASH.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

7/10. Too long, the plot line in Asia was almost completely orphaned, and the movie seemed to drag when the Joker wasn't on screen.

Alright, I'm going to try to respond. It is 8 am and I'm still half asleep...

Quote:
I do feel that the character devolpment was a bit quick, especially that of Harvey Dent. Going back to those good ole comic book days, Harvey last quite a bit longer, but who's counting.

I don't 100% buy Harvey is dead. I have nothing to pin that feeling on, but I simply don't buy it. Even Gordon "died," I felt sucker punched and when he popped out of the SWAT van, I almost wanted to cry. I had no reaction to Harvey (or Rachel, but that's a different story).

Quote:
The storyline in the movie never did truly stop, and that's honestly what I really enjoyed about it. There was a new peice moving all the time. In essence, when you feature a film at 157 mins, I can see why.

Absolutely. It needed to keep moving at all times. I just wonder what the finished product would be like it stopped every once in a while to give us a scene unrelated to the plot.

Quote:
Spidey 2 wasn't that great? Most would say that SM2 is the movie that TDK dethroned.

I never said SM2 wasn't an excellent movie. Every time I watch it, I enjoy it. But as Eddie says, the CGI is bad. You're always aware what you're watching can't be real. Maguire is no Christian Bale and Spidey does not have a villain to match the Joker. Alfred Molina and Willem Defoe and Thomas Hayden Church are good actors. Ledger blows them out of the water.

Quote:
I'm surprised Jason wasn't put off by the "anti-psychotic" and "anti-crime" messages of the film. . .but then that would mean he was taking a plot device too seriously. It's not like that's ever happened before, like, say, in a movie that featured an earth that was COVERED IN TRASH.

Okay, look. For the one billionth time: I was not put off by the second half of Wall-E. I felt the message was hammered home a bit too much. That's all.

I never got the feeling Nolan and company were trying to make a point, even in the Joker/Batman conversation at the end. He was allowing the characters to speak what was on their minds.

Quote:
the plot line in Asia was almost completely orphaned

No, it wasn't. Getting Lao back to Gotham to lock him up was step 1 in bringing down the rest of the mob's money. After Fox went to Hong Kong and Batman kidnapped him, there was no purpose to being there anymore. And Lao did show up one or two more times to remind us he was essential to the formation of the plot. What more did you want?

Jason, tired

Quote:
best comic-book superhero adaptations:
1) "iron man"
2) "the hulk" (ang lee/eric bana, not leterrier/norton)
3) "the dark knight"

Hulk??? That one was one of Marvel's WORST adaptations. The new one is a major improvement over that piece of crap Ang Lee put out.

Iron Man was excellent, but The Dark Knight is undoubtably the King of all superhero movies.

What I can’t believe is how some of you think X-Men 2 was one of the greats! That movie was too cornball for me, and what I mean is it’s the kind of film that wants to be taken serious but comes across too damn silly in certain areas. Take the scene where the cops show up at the kids house to arrest the X-men and all hell breaks loose – we get the usual cliché of all the cops being completely inept to do their job and that scene alone ruined the movie for me. To be honest, I find the X-men movies fun entertainment – meaning put the brain aside and everything works fine. However, the overall quality of those films rates no more than a 6 to 7 out of 10, IMO. Plus, some of the CGI in those films is far from perfect, too.

Spider-man 2, however, was a great film because it offers more substance than many of the films in its genre. It’s really a love story with the whole super hero thing as a backdrop, when you really look at it. For me, I think it was the lack of any love relationship in Iron Man that makes it fail as a “perfect” movie, IMO. While I did truly enjoy Iron Man, I did feel there were those pieces of substance that were missing. I thought the Stark character was fun, but I couldn’t stop thinking that in real life we might view the guy as a weapons dealing, over-wealthy a-hole. Yet the character turns good, it still made me feel a little conflicted in whether I should like the character or not. Spider-man 2 offered so much more in character substance, as we get a love story combined with super hero action. Plus, it's far too difficult to not like or connect with Peter Parker. However, Iron man is just a pure adrenaline rush, and a fun one at that, but that’s about all it is. And in some ways, this is why Superman Returns fails for the complete opposite reasons – too much love story and very little action.

IMO, films in this genre work well when there is a perfect combination of substance and that’s what truly can make them great. Too much focus in one area tends to bog these films down lacking in good entertainment value. Plus, get rid of the corny, schmaltzy, spandex body suit and bad one-liner dialog helps a lot in the process of making something great. At least in Iron Man and Batman Begins there is an explanation to the suit and/or body armor, making it feel less cornball. Superman . . . he just has tights and a cape and we’re all supposed to not question it because, well, he’s Superman! Well, I’m not buying it as I think of it as unrealistic, stupid and just plain cheesy. The one thing I loved about The Incredibles is how it was explained why the cape was a bad idea, and the funny thing is it took an animated film to show how ridiculous wearing a cape is. lol.

---

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Jul 20, 2008]

Jason, great review once again. I'm looking forward to this movie more than ever now. Jason, I'm guessing you saw it on a regular screen, not IMAX? If so are you at all interested in seeing the IMAX version for comparisons sake? I'll be seeing it on IMAX tomorrow at noon and I can't wait.

Tim -

Quote:
The one thing I loved about The Incredibles is how it was explained why the cape was a bad idea, and the funny thing is it took an animated film to show how ridiculous wearing a cape is.

I love that scene where they explained the whole cape thing too. What a laugh. I hope they make another Incredibles.