Movie Review: The Dark Knight
July 19, 2008

Chances are, you’re not coming to me to find out whether or not you should see The Dark Knight. The hype has been such that you’ve either made up your mind about seeing it or you already have (I’m betting on the latter already).
So I’m not writing a newspaper-style review below. Instead, it will probably come off more like the 13-year-old who sat in a theater on his birthday in 1989 and watched Tim Burton’s “Batman” in amazement.
I had that same feeling in Raleigh’s IMAX theater Friday night. Instead, the childhood wonder I had as a 13-year-old was replaced with the awe and appreciation only an adult can fathom.
This movie is good … freaking great. It’s long. It’s layered (boy, is it layered). It’s shocking. It’s funny. It’s sickening.
Did I say it’s layered?
I’ll spare you the plot points, except to say The Dark Knight is about a terrorist in clown make-up who not only shakes up Gotham, he shakes up its heroes — Batman and District Attorney Harvey Dent. The levels of pain The Joker puts these men through has not been seen in a movie labeled as a “comic book” film. If you’ve read Allen Moore’s “The Killing Joke,” a graphic novel from the 80s where The Joker shoots and paralyzes Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, strips her to photograph her, then kidnaps Gordon to usher him through a funhouse filled with images of his still bleeding daughter — then you understand the inspiration for this Joker.
But this movie goes a step further. People die. Big people. You just don’t see this in comic book movies.
But it’s the weight of these deaths, these pulse-pounding you-have-to-choose-between-one-or-the-other situations that make this movie absolutely brilliant. Yes, I said “brilliant.” I feel like I have to go back and watch it again already just to catch some of the little nuances.
What I liked
• Heath Ledger: I mean, c’mon, this goes without saying, right? The moment you see Ledger on the screen, you forget this was the guy who died of a drug overdose earlier this year. You by no means can see the man who rode Brokeback a few years back, and this is not the guy who mulled his way through yawners like A Knights Tale, Casanova or 10 Things I Hate About You.
The man is/was an amazing actor though, and it wasn’t until the end — or with lines like “We could do this forever” to Batman — that I was sad that this was the last time we’d see Bale and Ledger tango.
Ledger owns the screen every time he graces it. The opening bank heist is but a prelude to the tricks he has up his sleeve throughout. He’s always one step ahead, and he has this city is in such shambles that at one point, it has to call in the national guard.
I had two favorite scenes, both involving The Joker. The first is his introduction to the mob, where (geniously) Ledger plays it nervous … like, this is my chance to show these guys I should be feared, but any one of these guys could just shoot me dead. So to make that first impression, he does his “pencil trick” you’ve heard so much about. It was both brutal and hilarious.
The second is Ledger’s scene in the hospital with (SPOILER ALERT) Harvey “Two Face.” His conversation with Dent — the “I’m just a dog chasing cars, I don’t know what I’d actually do if I caught one” line was my favorite — was captivating. His grandma-style walk as he walked away from the still exploding hospital (and his reaction when the last bomb goes off) was great. It’s exactly how you expect The Joker to react. (END SPOILER).
The Oscar talk you hear about Ledger isn’t just an attempt to memorialize the guy. To me, if an actor totally becomes his character and in doing so, puts you at the edge of your seat each time he appears, then yes … he deserves some kind of award.
• Aaron Eckhart: Lost in the Joker talk is the performance of Aaron Eckhart as Harvey “Two Face” Dent. Eckhart plays the role of “White Knight” almost to perfection and his anger after his physical and mental scarring is both believable and scary. I do feel they rushed his relationship with Rachel Dawes (played much better this time by Maggie Gyllenhaal) … though to say anything was rushed in a 2 1/2 hour movie is saying something about how much was actually put in a movie of this length and magnitude.
You believe Dent’s desire to do good, and you believe his transformation in the end. If I had one big complaint about Episode III of Star Wars it was that you really didn’t believe the transformation of Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader (nerd alert). Dent’s transformation to Two Face very much mirrors Anakin’s fall … only Eckhart pulls it off much better. (end nerd alert).
• IMAX: The opening scene of the Chicago (Gotham) skyline took everybody by surprise, so much that many leaned back because they felt they would fall out of their seats. Several of the key action sequences in this film (and all the city landscapes) were shot on IMAX film, and when these scenes appeared, the screen became several stories tall. If you haven’t experienced this movie in IMAX (and you want to do so), I suggest you do so.
• The drama: This wasn’t a comic book movie. It was more in line with The Departed or Heat. The mob plays a big part in this movie, and unlike comic book movies like Spider-Man or Superman, you really don’t know if somebody is going to live or die. The only certainty is Batman will survive (I mean, he has to appear in a few more films, right?) … beyond that, anybody’s fair game, and it really drives the suspense of this film.
• The acting: Christian Bale plays the tormented Bruce Wayne to near perfection. His only flaw is the gruff Batman voice (which is necessary when talking to people who know Bruce Wayne), which comes off as incoherent at times, especially during lengthy talks while in the Bat suit.
The interrogation scenes involving The Joker contain some of the best acting I’ve seen in the past few years, and all the supporting cast not only get good time on screen, they all perform admirably. Even some of the bit parts — mob bosses, cops during the chases, etc. — are treated seriously.
What I didn’t like
• The length: I actually wished it would have been longer, and that’s saying a lot for a 2 1/2 hour film. I thought the relationship between Dawes and Dent could have shown more for reasons that would have helped the ending, and I thought “Two Face” should have had more screen time. But I won’t complain too much, I left satisfied, regardless of the film’s length.
• The ending: Not that the ending disappointed me, I just don’t see where the third film is going and I really don’t know how Christopher Nolan can top this one. Maybe he can … but everything was thrown out there for The Dark Knight, that you have no idea where he’s going to take it for Part 3. Hell, maybe he’ll thrown in a Robin and get Arnold to come back as Mr. Freeze (can we safely say that Joel Schumacher’s vision for Batman — Batman Forever, Batman and Robin —was a total embarrassment now?).
I’ve been a big fan-boy nerd for this movie from the moment Gordon presented Batman the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, and despite the three years of building hype, I left the IMAX much the same way I left the theater back in 89 … giddy and amazed at what I’d just seen. I can’t wait to see it again … and I’ll gladly shell out the price of a movie ticket (perhaps a matinee though, these tickets get expensive) to see it again on the big screen.
Note about the violence: A few people have asked me to give a report on the violence, and for a PG-13 film, this movie comes awfully close to an R. I will say there is a lot of shooting, a lot of death, but nothing too graphic (even the pencil trick). The situations are a bit frightening for anybody under 13, but the actual violence is done well and I don’t remember seeing any actual blood.
My grade: 10 out of 10. It’s that good.
Entry Filed under: Movie Reviews. Tags: Dark Knight review, Heath Ledger, IMAX.
13 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

1.
Al Roethlisberger | July 19, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Billy, you mention the IMAX experience, but question: Was this film a good fit for an IMAX viewing?
I’ve been to a few films shown on IMAX, especially action films, that weren’t originally intended for IMAX, and it was quite an exercise in hurried neck-craning and head-swiveling to try to catch all the action, dialog, etc.
The IMAX is right up by where I work, so I’ve thought about heading up to see this film there, but wondered if it was an advantage or detriment in IMAX… or just to see it in a standard theater.
What do you think? Worth seeing in IMAX?
Also, did they show the Watchmen and Terminator trailers at the IMAX showing?
Al
2.
bjwest | July 20, 2008 at 3:27 am
Al, I think I can answer your question.
3.
billyliggett | July 21, 2008 at 3:34 am
Al, the IMAX didn’t take away from the action, and we had to sit just four rows back because of the amount of people there. It took a little getting used to at first, but it was great. Well worth the panoramic shots.
As for the trailers, they only showed Watchmen … no T4 … but I saw a bootleg of the T4 trailer, so I’m good to go.
4.
Eric | July 21, 2008 at 4:24 am
Billy,
First, great review. I think you captured the essence of the movie and pointed out some things that I missed, like the nervousness of the Joker with the mob.
Second, I think Heath actually stole many of the scenes. His acting, to me, was that good and any Oscar talk, nomination or award he might receive wouldn’t be a gimme. He played social deviant so well I think it would scare some real social deviants if they were to see the movie.
Thirdly, I think the IMAX is the only way to go here. The breathtaking opening sequence, from the fight scenes where you can actually see what is going on, makes the IMAX the best option. Al, that will be money well spent.
This is probably the best movie I have seen in a long time.
5.
Eric | July 21, 2008 at 4:26 am
Oh, and they did show the watchmen trailer but not the terminator.
6.
Al Roethlisberger | July 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Cool, thanks all… and yes, great review Billy
I’ll have to make some time after work this week to run down the street to the IMAX and check it out.
Al
7.
Greg | July 21, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Billy, I agree with your review. The movie was awesome.
The one disagreement I might have is although Maggie Gyllenhaal was better than Katie Holmes, I think they could have done better.
I totally agree that they could have done more with Two Face, but that would have made the movie even longer. Maybe this could have been two movies.
I think Zeus (the prisoner on one of the boats) should get best supporting actor.
They did have the T4 trailer in my theater, but it didn’t really do much to make me want to see the movie. The one line they do say to try and make this movie different from the originals is John Connor narrating, “This is not the future my mother told me about”
I leave it at that.
8.
Hilary Funderburk | July 21, 2008 at 4:29 pm
This movie was beyond awesome!!!! Heath Ledger was so good at playing the Joker that he didn’t even resemble Heath Ledger! (does that make sense??)
This movie made you believe that the Joker is a real villain and not a funny clown like he was in the 60’s. This is the Joker that you read about in the comics who murdered the 2nd Robin (Jason Todd, A Death in the Family), Shot Batgirl and confined her to a wheelchair as Oracle (The Killing Joke), murdered Jim Gordan’s wife in front of a bunch of babies (in No Man’s Land storyline) and all the other horrible stuff he’s done.
Wow. It’s about time someone read the comics and did a real Batman movie instead of that crap in the 90’s. Until Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the only “real” Batman on any screen has been the animated series they did in the 90’s. Can’t wait to see this one in Imax!! Maybe they’ll do a 3rd Batman movie – with Catwoman, or the Penguin, or the Riddler…
Hilary
9.
patrick | July 22, 2008 at 6:42 pm
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
10.
WaywardZ | July 23, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Honestly Im in stark disagreement with the majority of the movie-going public these days. While I found Heaths performance to be enthralling, I was wholly dissatisfied with the performances of Bale (either as Batman-the-overly-gruff-and-downright-nasty) as well as Eckart (Rocked as Dent, but missed the mark on two-face IMO).
As for the length of the film, there were several instances where I did want it to go on and on, but those instances didn’t appear until the climactic violence between J & Bats. A lot of the movie before this point felt like filler. Justification for all that hype they poured into it.
At no point was I surprised, shocked, awed, or otherwise by the film. It felt very rudimentary, and ham-fistedly paced.
All that being said, I did very much enjoy Heath as the Joker, I felt he nailed the psychology and general personality of the character, and I am saddened to know he won’t be reprising the role, ever.
IMO, the massive amounts of praise heaped upon Dark Knight is, for the most part, unfounded, and reeks of fanboyism. As an actual film, its high points were all character based, the plot was mediocre to non-existent.
11.
Al Roethlisberger | July 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Well, my feelings about Dark Knight are mixed, and I believe fell victim to the hype to some degree… which is always a risk any blockbuster film can suffer from. This is why I sometimes try to avoid reviews surrounding a film I personally am very excited about.
I’m not going to write a lengthy critical treatise as I suspect everything has been written, multiple times, throughout cyberspace and in print that I could touch upon.
Plus I think the original review above by Billy does the film justice.
Bottom line, I really enjoyed the film.
Now for some ‘nits’…
And as mentioned throughout any review, Heath Ledger’s ‘Joker’ was quite well done and was the standout in the film. Although I did find the repeated inconsisten self-referential monologues about how he got his scars to fall short of the goal, and simply proved tiresome, which I’m assuming was to show his habitual deception and/or delusion, plus leave his origin murky. That bit of writing just didn’t work for me. But that admittedly is a very small an inconsequential nit, and more of a writing issue I think, not acting. It just somehow stuck with me as I left the theater though.
I also was unconvinced by Harvey Dent’s metamorphosis, and for a film of such length, was disappointed by how this hugely significant part of Batman history seemed rushed. As compared to the Joker, Two Face seemed 2 dimensional(pun intended).
But on that note, hooray for the sacrifice made for the creation of Two Face. It’s always a good formula to lose a key character or two in a dark film.
The other thing that just wasn’t quite there for me was the foundational storyline of the Joker’s attempt at something of a social experiment and the public’s sheer panic. We’ve seen this sociopathic vehicle used by various villains over the years, or even in ‘disaster’ films like the recent ‘I am Legend’ where the balance between social order and dystopia is reached, and in the case of Dark Knight I felt like this fear of a dangerous social tipping point was just allllmost achieved… but not quite convincing. I just didn’t get an empathetic feel of mass hysteria on a grand scale. I can’t say why, but it just wasn’t quite believable for me. The outdoor scenes seemed too bright and cheery for this dark a film.
An initially unpleasant surprise, that proved to be good news, was the Marbles IMAX screen. This was our first visit to the Marbles IMAX theater, so we assumed that it was going to be like all other IMAX theaters I had attended, which are hemispherical screens often used for planetarium exhibitions, nature films, roller-coaster sims, etc…
This was where my questions about the suitability of watching this film on an IMAX screen came from earlier in this thread.
Initially my friend’s comment was ‘I feel ripped off’ when we saw that the Marble’s screen was simply a 3500 sqft flat screen, but then I pointed out that this would greatly diminish the distortion and ‘head spinning’ required to watch a film not originally intended for an IMAX ‘immersion’ 180 degree screen.
And in the end, that was right, as the Dark Knight looked great and was relatively easy to watch on the flat screen. I only add the caveat of ‘relatively’ because although we sat in the center of the auditorium, I think we were still just a little too close. But that’s no fault of the film.
However, boy was the large format print clear. It looked like you were there on top of those buildings. I’m glad the Marbles screen is flat.
And the trailer for Watchmen looked awesome on the big screen. Please oh please, I hope they get it right. It would be such a shame not to.
I also just heard that Frank Miller has partnered with Watchmen director Zack Snyder (300) to possibly do Batman ‘The Dark Knight Returns’. Very exciting if accurate, although I don’t know if the mini-series is do-able in one film, although they are doing Watchmen in one film, so perhaps…
But even with those minor comments, I think The Dark Knight was great and we’ll be seeing it again when the kids are back from vacation. We’ll even be going back to the IMAX, and who knows, the second showing may prove even better.
I haven’t seen a film more than once at the theater in decades, so even with any nits I can pick, the fact that I’ll see it again speaks volumes I think. It’s a good film, and I think will hold up well over time.
We haven’t seen Nolan’s third Batman yet, but so far this film is on its way to being Batman’s ‘The Empire Strikes Back’
Al
12.
Jacob Wilson | July 28, 2008 at 5:50 pm
WRONG, wrong, totally wrong kid. You have no concept of film. This movie was atrocious, in some ways almost as disappointing a sequel as 1992’s “Batman Returns”.
Well, let me start by saying how much it pains me to be saying this. I was so excited that the Batman franchise was revived, and revived so brilliantly, by Chris Nolan in 2005. The first “Batman”, in 1989, was a hit and fun to watch, though flawed. It was followed up by an horribly disappointing sequel, then two more flops. But Nolan undid all that damage with “Batman Begins”, the first movie to really give the character the treatment it deserved.
And now, I’m sorry to say, we have “Batman Returns” all over again. The script is a lot smarter, that’s for sure, and the film may even be the Oscar-caliber picture everyone’s saying it is. But like the 1992 fiasco with Catwoman and Penguin, this movie is completely, utterly joyless. There’s no one to cheer for in this movie, not really (for reasons I’ll explain), and there’s certainly nothing to cheer ABOUT. By film’s end, is there any reason to hope for Gotham’s future like there was at the close of “Batman Begins”? A better question: is there any reason left to CARE about Gotham? I don’t. Before I get into specifics, I understand that some will say I’m missing the point of the movie — that it’s SUPPOSED to be “dark” — a super-hero film noir. I don’t have a problem with that. “Batman Begins” was dark, but when all the chips were finally down, we cheered, because the little sliver of light left in Gotham City finally shone through and conquered darkness, at least for a day, and the city finally had a hero, and hope to boot. Dark is good — Batman MUST be dark — but you have to give your audience something to be glad about at some point, or you’ve got an exercise in misery like “The Grapes of Wrath”.
“The Dark Knight” was an exercise in misery. I had no reason to care about the character, and Bruce Wayne/Batman was a psychological mess in this movie, and seemed completely overmatched at all times by his antagonists. Fine, the movie would be dull and suspenseless if Batman weren’t flawed like the rest of us. But the movie never game him a chance to be an hero. He wallowed in depression from start to finish. So did the other characters. So did the city. Oh boy, fun! It was dark, disturbing, and gruesome… and that’s it. And they overdid the gruesome. My wife was so disturbed by it that we had to watch “Napoleon Dynamite” immediately when we got home, to get the images out of her head.
And my 14-year-old niece has been having nightmares (no joke) ever since. It should be rated “R”. And again, the gore was never balanced out by anything heroically positive, unlike “Begins”. By the end, I’m wishing Bats had just let Ra’s Al Ghul finish the city off in the first film.
SOME SPECIFICS:
BUMBLING BATMAN: Batman seems to have regressed in his Ninja-like crime-fighting skills. Case in point: Batman finally confronts the Joker at the end, who’s alone except for 3 dobermans. The dobermans attack. Batman successfully fights off the first one, but the second two knock him down and keep him down so the Joker can whale on him. Let me say that again: BATMAN is overpowered, completely outclassed, by TWO DOGS in this scene. So he can disappear like a Ninja, fight 500 men at once according to the first movie… but his training didn’t cover how to handle a couple of dobermans? In “Begins”, we were allowed to be in awe of Batman’s combat skill. No more. Might as well have been Adam West out there.
WHO’S THE MAIN CHARACTER? Batman/Bruce Wayne didn’t get enough screen time; Joker got too much. Granted, Ledger was brilliant, but Joker isn’t the title character. This movie could have been titled “Joker Begins”. The first film was experienced through the eyes of Bruce Wayne, the hero. In this movie, the audience is an outside observer, and there is no hero. (More on that.)
STUPID ENDING: Other than Nolan’s need to make the movie as miserable and depressing as possible (mission accomplished), can someone explain to me why Batman had to be the one framed for Dent’s murders? Why couldn’t they have pinned them on… oh, I don’t know, say… THE PSYCOPATHIC CLOWN WHO WAS THE MAIN VILLAIN? Or for that matter, the Paparazzi, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Amish, anybody! No, the movie has to end with the city completely turning on Batman, believing him to be a cop-killer. In the comic, the city is never 100% sold on Batman, but they never turn on him en masse as with this unnecessary twist.
NOT CONSISTENT WITH COMIC: This material was largely based on a Graphic Novel I own called “The Killing Joke”. The plot: Joker kidnaps both Commissioner Gordon and his daughter (not realizing she’s Batgirl). He injures Batgirl to the point of paralysis, then forces Gordon to endure images of her torture. He’s out to prove to Batman that even the most straight-laced in our society are just one bad day from insanity. In the end, Batman crashes his party, beats him to a pulp, then gladly informs him, “I just left Gordon, and he’s just as sane as he was a week ago — even insisted that I bring you in by the book.”
Joker’s plot failed, good triumphed. But not in this movie. There was a brief moment of good, when the passengers of the boat decided not to destroy each other. But in every other respect, Joker wins, as Gordon points out. He leaves Gotham in ruins and Batman a quivering bag of emotional slop, public enemy #1. If Batman’s experience with the Joker resulted in any positive or substantive change in his character, other than to make him (and us) really sad, then I missed it.
DENT-to-TWO-FACE NOT BELIEVABLE: Dent loses the girl he loves to a terrorist attack, which I’ll grant must be an horrific emotional experience. He deals with his grief by… becoming a psychotic murderer? Sorry, I don’t buy this one. Dent hated the criminal element arguably even more than Bruce Wayne; it doesn’t compute that when that hated element robbed him of a loved one, he’d become just another vicious criminal and resort to murdering a good cop’s children for revenge. Just doesn’t work for me. At least most of his victims seemed to having it coming, which makes it all the more curious that they couldn’t find a better solution than framing Batman for cop-killings.
NO BAT-CHEMISTRY: I’ll agree with you on the dramatic oomf of the interrogation scenes between Bats and Joker, but once again, Batman came off as “dazed and confused” in these scenes, staring at Joker helplessly with this “deer in headlights” expression. Joker was never NOT in control. Batman was throwing the punches, but Joker was really the one doing the interrogating. And that could have worked, had the script given us some balance and allowed Batman to turn the tables at some point.
I kept waiting for the moment when Batman, dubbed “the world’s greatest detective” by the comic, to outwit the Joker and then kick some butt. For me, that never happened. Even when Joker was finally (weakly) apprehended, I never believed that Batman had the situation in hand. I ALMOST got a chill in the interrogation scene, when Gordon leaves the room and then we see Batman’s silhouette behind an unsuspecting Joker… but that moment quickly passes, as a befuddled Batman soon returns to desperately flailing for answers. He never, ever kicked any butt; when he tried, he always seemed unsure of what he was doing. There was no satisfaction in it.
LOOKING AHEAD: Robin? PLEASE, Christopher Nolan, spare us the silliness! Batman can’t be Batman with a teenage sidekick in a brightly-colored circus outfit. It might help DC sell comics to teens, but in a movie it just doesn’t work, and that’s why the best Batman stories ever written featured Bats going solo.
I recall that when 1992’s “Batman Returns” disappointed at the box office, Warner Bros. assumed that the movie was “too dark” for mainstream super-hero audiences, and in came Joel Shumacker — along with Robin, nipples on the Bat-suit, enough camp to rival the 1960’s version, and hence the death of the franchise.
Fortunately, the current version seems to have resonated with critics and audiences alike, so hopefully Nolan won’t feel any pressure to “lighten it up”. I don’t want him too. Even though I thought the story failed, I appreciate what Nolan TRIED to do. But as Harvey Dent said before he became a psychotic child-murderer, “It’s always darkest just before the dawn.” In this film, the dawn never came.
GRADE: 2 Batsignals out of 5. It’s that bad.
13.
Al Roethlisberger | September 2, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Went to see Batman again at the Marbles for a second time a few weeks back, this time with the kids, and it was still a great experience.
I noticed some things that I missed before, and others that bothered me before, were less this time. Overall worth seeing twice. I don’t think I could do a third viewing though.
But one critical measure I didn’t mention before was the ‘butt pucker’ factor. A perfect ‘10′ movie would leave one with the feeling of timlessness, no hurry to leave. Even as good as Batman was, I still found myself checking the watch at some points late in the movie…. but very late. So with that I’ll have to downgrade to an 8-9 on a 10 point scale.
However, to be fair, on the ‘I gotta pee, but can hold it’ factor, Batman excels. I had to go pretty well by the end of my first showing, and managed to keep it at bay. So maybe that brings it up to a 9ish
And as far as being ‘dark’ or ‘too dark’… again, I’ll call this Batman’s ‘Empire Strikes Back’. ESD was considered depressing, dark, and real ‘let down’ when it came out, but now is considered one of the best of the series, if not THE best of the Star Wars series.
Just an observation….
But regardless of personal opinion, I think the box-office tells the tale. Movie-goers and most comic geeks I know love this film.
I kinda like it too.
Al