Review: ‘The Dark Knight’ DVD

Robert Greenberger

Robert Greenberger is best known to comics fans as the editor of Who's Who In The DC Universe, Suicide Squad, and Doom Patrol. He's written and edited several Star Trek novels and is the author of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia. He's known for his work as an editor for Comics Scene, Starlog, and Weekly World News, as well as holding executive positions at both Marvel Comics and DC Comics.

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. IGPNicki says:

    You made some really good points about the movie. There are definitely some plot holes, and it was definitely a little too long (aren't all movies nowadays? What's up with that??). Even though it would've been cool to see Two-Face have his own showdown with Batman in the third movie, I think they at least handled him well in this movie. I don't particularly care for the multiple villain thing. It never seems to play out very well. Ever since King Kong in the Peter Jackson movie decided to take out not one, but three dinosaurs, it just seems like directors are trying to pack a lot more than they need to into one movie. So I guess i'm hoping that Nolan will simplify in the next film, and not feel the need to get even more complicated.

  2. David says:

    Thank you so much. It makes me feel much better knowing that there are other people in this world that don't think The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Hear! Hear! The story was bloated and it seemed as if they wrote the movie around the Joker sequences. The subplot about the Wayne Corp employee figuring out that Bruce is Batman only so the Joker can have access to the hospitals could have been edited out and it wouldn't have affected the story. I saw Batman Begins 3 times in the theaters but TDK only once. Also, Barbara aka Batgirl should have been by her Father's (Uncle?) side in the last scene being inspired by Batman not little Jim Jr. the perfect son. UGH!

  4. Kent Hare says:

    After stating that the death of Rachel and "birth" of Two-Face would have made a whopper cliffhanger, you say: "Instead, Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer decide to expend the Two-Face story in this somewhat bloated production. The make-up effects are stunning and Eckhart sells it quite well. Rather than let the Joker live and Two-Face die, especially in light of Ledger’s death, the filmmakers made a strategic error." Should that not read, "Rather than let Two-Face live and the Joker die"? – "especially in light of Ledger's death."

  5. Tyson Durst says:

    I have to say that the 2-disc set is disappointing in terms of being really sparse on extras compared to Begins.Like many people, I enjoyed this movie a lot but I also felt like not many people were pointing out some of the flaws (Batman Begins had some too) in the midst of the critical gushing. I still don't like the ending for a few reasons like how it undermines the climax and also seems to suggest that "it's better to lie and cover things up rather than have people deal with the truth". In that sense, The Joker still wins and his twisted view of things is never really challenged. In fact, it's upheld and reinforced by Gordon and Batman's decision. I just don't see Gordon ever buying into that. Also, Ramirez is still alive and knows the truth. What happens to Gordon's credibility and his job as Commissioner if the truth comes out? I think filing false police reports, conspiracy etc. would sink his career.And how does the Joker sneak several barrels of explosives onto the ferries when the National Guard has been called in and the city is on high alert? Not a single person thought to do a quick check before leaving port?Sure, it's just a "comic book movie" some reviewers may and do say but it's also one that has made a big deal about injecting a high dose of realism and plausibility into its world so the "comic book" excuse is a bit of a copout when the director is talking about rooting everything in reality to some degree.I agree that saving Two-Face for a third film as lead villain would have been great. If they wanted, they could easily bring Two-Face back. It wasn't like they tossed him into a woodchipper on camera. And maybe in the next film, Bale/ the sound mixers might ease up on the rasp a bit. I mean, sure there's tough rasp that people can understand but there's also "I'm having difficulty making out some of your sentences" rasp.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is a very good review of the movie. I saw it three times in the cinema, and I agree with your conclusions – especially the parts about the change of look and the absence of Batman from a Batman movie – Nolan treats Batman as too much of a given. The tragedies happen to Gordon and Dent, not to our main character. To be honest, the main problem is that there are "supervillans": in Batman Begins, Crane isn't really Scarecrow per se, and Ra's al Ghul is Ducard for most of the movie (and neither has ever been shown before in the movies anyway). I hate the "Rogues Gallery" villans, we have seen them too much in the movies and it's not interesting. I really hope the rumours of Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing Penguin are a hoax. I think the next film should be like "The Dark Knight Returns", set 50 years in the future with Bruce Wayne being old, but anyway…The only way that TDK works is when you see the movie from the perspective that it's actually a movie about the Joker. Perhaps the Nolan bros. thought that that was more interesting? Or maybe they are setting us up for something big in the third movie? I dunno. But certainly Batman Begins is a more satisfying, unique, and more 'complete' film.

  7. russ carreiro says:

    Actually sounds like a review by a hater to me. I dont care about one single point he made to be honest. There are things to criticize the movie about but nothing he said takes much away from it to me. It wasnt the greatest movie, but it was the best Batman movie. Period.

  8. mr joshua says:

    while i admit that fandom has overreached a bit in hailing "the dark knight" as best picture material, it always amuses me how critics always apply a double standard when reviewing pictures based on comic book characters. it's funny when a critic refers to things he thought were missing, when it is obvious he as never read a batman comic in his life. maybe any comic, for that matter. i mean, really mr. greenberger?? more bruce wayne?? in a batman movie?? cause, you know, that's the way the comics are, after all…which is where the double standard comes in. comics are never taken seriously because they're comics, but when their done well, you want to compare comic-based movies with mainstream hollywood films. you're comparing apples to apples, when you should be comparing krptonite to x-rays…as someone who is very familiar to the source material, i think the only flaw was that nolan tried to to tell too much of the story too quickly. the story was correct, and quite good. it just may have been presented in a clearer way, so that all those "film" critics could follow it better.and responding to you agreeing with the quote from the guardian referring to the outrageous plot, especially with reference to the joker getting caught after the chase……………………….it's a movie about a guy who dresses like a bat and fights crime!!!!………………lol!! you guys crack me up!!!

  9. Gerald WEsley says:

    The Dark Knight was a good film, not great. I say that because Batman was almost like an after-thought in this film, as one commenter mentioned. Also, it needed to have an ending that was positive. It's bad enough that Heath Ledger died. The film went on about 20 minutes too long. I agree with a previous commenter when they said that the film should have ended with Rachel's death and Two-Face coming onto the scene. I also felt Eric Roberts' character was unnecessary. Finally, I hope that somehow The Nolans are able to bring back Lucius Fox in the next film.

  10. English Gavz says:

    David Goyer originally wrote the outline of TDK as a 2 part film, which would have worked better. We would get 2 Batman films, and right now we'd probably be speculating what would happen in the sequel coming out in spring 2009, and they'd probably have had time to make a video game. Basically the film is solid, but shakes a little with the test of time.

  11. Alan S says:

    Gerald says: "Also, it needed to have an ending that was positive. It's bad enough that Heath Ledger died. The film went on about 20 minutes too long. I agree with a previous commenter when they said that the film should have ended with Rachel's death and Two-Face coming onto the scene."My question is, wouldn't ending the movie with Rachel's death and the rise of Two-Face have been much more downbeat and less positive than the movie's real ending?