The Dark Knight
2008, United States
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan
Story: David Goyer, Christopher Nolan
Notes: Only posthumous Oscar winner in history is Peter Finch (1976)
Though better than Batman Begins (which was a fine film to begin with), The Dark Knight is a work very much in the same vein. The villains are fascinating and the heroes inspiring, but there is again a bit of schizophrenia in the story, as if the writers are afraid they’ll lose the audience unless they introduce some new plot device every five minutes. There are plenty of gadgets for Batman to bandy about in this installment. There are also two romance plot threads, at least two criminal kingpins (why is the Batman franchise so determined to cram multiple villains into one film?), half a dozen assassination attempts and apparent resurrections, and seemingly hundreds of plot twists or misdirections on the part of both good and bad guys.
It all adds up to a movie that is entertaining, often dazzlingly so, but frustrating at the same time. In fact, I think there’s a specific time when the weight of the ideas starts to bog the story down, and that is when two pivotal characters confront each other in a hospital ward room. From then on the movie tries to do too much, when more screen time should have been devoted to the final confrontation between Batman and the Joker. Instead the climax is too busy and the payoff less punctuated.
The Dark Knight peaks early, but it is quite a peak. The sense of rising drama through the first 2/3rds of the movie is exhilarating. Heath Ledger’s Joker is, as everyone in the free world now knows, simply fantastic. Perhaps as important as the performance is the script’s interpretation of the character, which establishes a villain that is multi-layered and menacing. Precious few movies have an antagonist that has you actually worrying for the hero, but this incarnation of the Joker fits the bill. He is the greatest movie villain to come along for quite some time.
Style: 8
This is a pretty film; the way Ledger struts and staggers about is alone worth the price of admission, as well as multiple viewings. Dark Knight also remedies what was, in my mind, one of the more notable drawbacks of the first movie, that is a lack of a truly engaging action sequence. A police chase midway through entertains the eyes like nothing in its predecessor.
Substance: 7
The dialogue is consistently clever, and rises to excellence in parts. The story does a superior job of raising the stakes, to a point. Some bits meander and lead nowhere while a few plot points stretch believability.
Overall: 8
2008 will go down as the year of the comic book movie, headlined by blockbusters Iron Man and the Dark Knight. I will be in the minority in saying this (in part due to the incredible attention and momentum generated by Heath Ledger’s death), but I think Iron Man is a tighter and better film than the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight needed to let itself breathe a little more, and have stronger faith in fewer ideas. But where the movie works, it works exceptionally well, and Ledger’s intriguing Joker will keep this movie in the hearts of many for years to come.
July 22, 2008 at 11:30 am
I liked this movie more than you did, and more than Iron Man. It was more ambitious than Iron Man, and had much better villians. I think the Dark Knight is the first Batman movie to successfully have multiple villians. Both the Joker and Two Face were essential parts of the same plot (Two Face would not exist without the Joker), and I never felt one was just tacked on. Some points were a little hard to follow (the movie moved quickly, and it was hard to understand some points with the idiots talking behind me), but I was never lost and was interested for the full 2.5 hours (contrast that with, say, the middle of The Two Towers). I can’t wait for the next one. Who’s next? Catwoman (now that Rachael is gone, the door is open for Selina Kyle)? Robin? Do the Riddler or Mr. Freeze have the gravitas for this current Batman serial?
I’m curious. What “bits meander” and what “plot points stretch believability”?
July 23, 2008 at 12:00 pm
*SPOILER ALERT*
Well, I’m not sure Two Face belonged in this movie. His fall from grace felt a little forced, a little hurried, to me. It seemed weird that he kidnapped Gordon’s family. If anything, you’d expect him to go nuts on the Joker. If he just went stark raving mad maybe I could understand it, but he really didn’t, or at least it didn’t come off that way. More importantly, Two Face was too much of a distraction towards the end. He added an unnecessary extra climax and killed the Joker’s momentum. Also, I think Harvey Dent is a strong enough character for his own movie (though the Hollywood folks clearly disagree). Now we’re left with the Riddler as the only really good Batman villain left. I mean, Catwoman? The Penguin? Mr. Freeze? No, no, and no.
As for the meandering bits and questionable plot points. First off, the Joker is a little too clever to be believable. He relies on getting captured and goading a guard to escape? This is what he hinges his master plan on? Hmmm. Gordon’s falsified death…was this necessary? How did this help the good guys get the Joker, and how did the Joker see right through it? The whole thing seemed superfluous.
Smaller stuff…the part where Two Face confronts Falcone is just bizarre. He shoots the driver and the car FLIPS OVER…and I guess we’re just left to assume that Falcone dies but Two Face lives? Can someone explain the point of that scene? Action-wise, there were a LOT of shots of Batman just carving through guys with his karate. This is tolerably bad-ass the first time, but there’s just too much of it. No sense of danger or resistance (though apparently Batman’s achilles heel is dogs). Contrast that with Iron Man’s escape from the terrorist caves. Though that scene is bad-ass, the suit shows its limitations. An arm gets stuck in a wall, and at one point he falls to his knees. I think you need to show that kind of stuff. Also, I found the parking garage sequence in general to be pretty confusing. You have multiple Batmans running around, and I’m not exactly sure what the Scarecrow’s role is.
I know this all sounds really negative, but this was stuff that bothered me while being blown away the rest of the time. I do wish they edited it down some more. I think they fell short of creating a true masterpiece by overthinking the ending.
July 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm
*More spoilers*
Stuff I really liked about the movie:
- the opening bank robbery is creative, entertaining and a perfect introduction to the Joker’s character.
- the Falcone character. I know he’s pretty minor, but I think they nailed the look for this guy. Love the smarmy expressions.
- the mid-film police chase was electrifying. They did a great job of constantly upping the stakes.
- Gotham felt more like a real city in this one. It was smart to do some wide angle daylight shots, like the parade scene. It did a good job of establishing a real, big city with people whose lives could be in danger.
- there’s a particularly nice panning shot of the Joker with his back to the camera, surrounded by his attack dogs. Awesome.
July 26, 2008 at 9:11 am
See, now I’d like to read your review of Iron Man since you thought it was the better movie. Was it on your other site? Can you re-create it? I absolutely loved both movies so I’d like to hear your reasoning and thoughts about Iron Man now that I know you prefer it to TDK.
July 26, 2008 at 10:33 am
Agree with your criticism of batman. I too found it somewhat confusing at times and felt they threw in too much into one movie. That said, I still thought it was amazing.
I don’t understand how you can compare Iron Man to Dark Knight though. Iron Man was not in the same league as Batman. It probably deserves a 4 on your rating system. It did not have any scenes that were stylistically as good as the Dark Knight police chase scene or the Hong Kong scene or the end sequence vs. the Joker. Additionally, Dark Knight was a truly powerful movie that left many people I know (including myself) in awe. Iron Man did not inspire a similar reaction in anyone I know. People enjoyed it (not me, I could not wait to get out of the theater), but nobody was amazed by it.
July 26, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Pam and Vik, rating Iron Man above TDK is a very, very tough decision, tougher than I might make it seem. TDK has a greater peak, but it is just way too busy as a movie and I think there are some distinctly poor decisions that were made. I just can’t say the same about Iron Man, which on a visceral level entertained me more, as well. But since you asked, I have just posted my review of Iron Man. Take a look!
Vik, I think the escape from the terrorist caves in Iron Man was as good as any scene in TDK, with the possible exception of the police chase. Watching Tony Stark construct the suit was also awesome, IMO. And even though the Joker’s strategems in TDK were exciting, I got annoyed by how many rugs the film tried to pull out from under the audience.
Do you guys think Heath Ledger’s death has exaggerated the film’s reception at all? I kinda feel like it’s added this level of mysticism to the Joker character, on top of a brilliant performance….
July 26, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I think that Harvey Dent/Two Face was an essential part of the movie. He provides a foil for Batman (the “White Knight” and “Dark Knight” comparisons), and he provides the Joker a person to corrupt, to prove his point that humanity is inherently corruptable and latently evil. Two Face was going to kill the Joker, but consistent with his character, the coin said that the Joker would live. Also, Two Face going after Gordon is consistent with Two Face’s newly found philosophy . Rachel was taken from Harvey with a fifty-fifty chance. Why shouldn’t Jim Gordon (a man similar to Harvey Dent) face the same odds with his family, too? It’s the only fair thing to do in Two Face’s world view. Also, I would argue that Two Face is not dead and will return. Do we see the corpse? Didn’t Batman survive the same fall? I would bet money that Two Face is alive and well, and will return.
Also, the Joker having himself incarcerated being part of his plan isn’t terribly far-fetched. It’s not like it would be difficult for him to get incarcerated. As for goading the guard, the Joker bets on people’s darker impulses all the time (e.g. the bombs on the two cruise ships). This scheme seems consistent with his modus operandi.
I totally agree with Vik that Iron Man is nowhere in the same league as The Dark Knight. It’s not as ambitious, does not ask any deep questions (TDK is steeped in morality and justice, and how murky these concepts can be), and doesn’t even have a compelling villian.
Just a clarification: Carmine Falcone was not in this movie (only the first one). I think the gangster to which you refer is actually Maroni.
July 26, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I hear you, Will. I think Iron Man was more entertaining as a movie (Robert Downey’s snarkiness and the dead pan way in which he depicted Tony was incredibly fun to watch) but TDK had so many levels and deeper questions that it was probably the more superior film.
I loved both movies, I have to say, but Iron Man (which I had no interest in seeing and was dragged to by Marty) left me laughing, entertained and leaving the theater with a light heart. TDK left me in my chair needing a minute to absorb it all. Yes, there were a few points that were hard to follow (but I figured it out before the end), but overall, it took my breath my away on multiple levels.
It’s a tough call, but I think, although they are both superhero movies they set out to accomplish two different things. It’s kind of like apples and oranges to me.
And yes, I do think that Ledger’s untimely death probably led to some of the mystery and hype about TDK but I think it was more so his portrayal of the Joker that had everyone talking. I’m pretty sure that it still would have broken records like it has and that we’d still be talking about a possible oscar nom….
Will, they do show Dent’s corpse after the fall – Batman turns his head so the good side is showing instead of the burnt side. He isn’t breathing (I always looks to see if actor’s can hold it for the scene) and I think if I remember correctly that his eyes are open too but that could be wrong on my part. They don’t show him for too long, Batman and Gordon talk for a few minutes and then Batman dashes off into the night. So, very possible Dent was faking the death…….
July 27, 2008 at 7:17 am
Will: Thanks for the clarification on Maroni. I thought they said the new gangster was replacing Falcone as head of the family, and I assumed he was another Falcone.
It’s ridiculous to suggest the movies aren’t in the same league. Iron Man is a more lighthearted movie, but Tony Stark does ask deep questions of himself. TDK (and Batman Begins, for that matter) could have used a serious editing down, which was a big drawback for me. And, yes, people are being blown away by TDK, but people were also “blown away” by Gladiator, which was an average movie at best. So you can’t go by the crowd, which basically follows the hype.
July 27, 2008 at 10:09 am
I have a very simple method for rating movies. I like a movie if I come out of the theater mentally/emotionally affected in some way – so if the movie made me happy, awed, excited, intrigued, intellectually challenged, or drew me in so that I really feel something for the characters, then I will like the movie.
Batman really drew me in and I came out amazed and intellectually stimulated. A couple of issues that they did a great job portraying were – showing how easily humans can be corrupted in a difficult situation, and attempting to define what makes a hero, a hero. Heath Ledger’s death did not affect my personal rating of this movie. You know I don’t care about actors, I barely believe there is such a thing as a good actor, so Heath Ledger had nothing to do with my rating.
In contrast Iron Man did not affect me in any way and did not make me think. I did not feel that the movie asked deep questions. I agree with you that Batman could have used some editing, instead of a 2.5 hour movie it could have been a 2 hour movie. But the same thing applies to Iron Man. Instead of being a 2 hour movie, it should probably have been a 1 hour movie. I found Iron Man to be boring and could not wait to get out of the theater. I am not sure why you liked the escape scene at the beginning of the movie, I thought it was nothing special. By and large it was a one sided beat down. From there things got worse and the movie barely had a plot. What was the plot of Iron Man? Billion playboy gets captured, builds a suit to escape, improves on the suit for the rest of the movie, pisses off his corporate partner because he does not want to do more defense work, and so there is a fight scene. There was no drama, no tension, no interesting challenges. For me, Iron Man was a below-average movie while Dark Knight was an excellent movie, so yes they are on different levels.
July 27, 2008 at 11:05 am
Hey Vik,
I’m not surprised that we differ so widely on something like Iron Man. As we’ve seen in the past, we’ve got pretty different tastes. I look forward to trying to bridge that gap, but we’ve got a long way to go.
Iron Man was a character-oriented film. It’s hard to establish relationships that feel as natural as they did in that film. In this blog I’m going to refer to Roger Ebert a lot, because he puts into words what I often can’t. To read his 4 star review of Iron Man, click here. He talks about the character dynamic in that movie and why it works so well. I enjoy stuff like character development a lot more than you do, which is why I’m not surprised by our disagreement here.
I kind of agree with you on the actors thing. Actually, I think it’s tough to distinguish quality acting (even when you can recognize a good performance, it’s sometimes hard to determine how much credit is due the director).
Saying Iron Man and TDK are on different levels is missing some of the subtlety in the former as well as missing the fact that they are just different movies (as Pam said). I’d encourage you to read my review of Iron Man and let me know what you disagree with.