Review: ‘The Dark Knight’ DVD
The Dark Knight stunned movie audiences by taking the mature themes and tone of its predecessor, [[[Batman Begins]]], and amping things up by a factor of 10. The movie was hailed by critics for around the world and theatres packed in the crowds to the tune of $1 billion in box office (or thereabouts).
In rewatching the film on DVD, now out from Warner Bros., the film remains very strong thanks to terrific lighting, set design, and riveting performances from Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart. Yet, the story doesn’t hold together as well.
First of all, Gotham looks and feels different from the first film from director Christopher Nolan. The city had been a character all on its own, with the architecture and monorail but now it just looks like, you know, Chicago. We don’t know how long its been since the first film, but since it ends with the Joker’s calling card, it can’t have been that long for a remake, and yet Batman’s legend is such that people are already out there being bat-masked vigilantes.
We know [[[Batman]]] is a presence, so much so that the criminal operations are suffering. Enter, the Joker, a force of nature. The performance by Ledge is riveting because he makes you forget all about Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson and creates something totally fresh. His desire to spread chaos in opposition to Batman’s sense of order becomes the film’s spine.
But, once you examine what happens next, things take an odd turn.
As the UK’s [[[Guardian]]] put it, when they named the film as having the most ridiculous plot of the year: “Wait, so the Joker really orchestrated that big truck chase just so that he could get caught and go to prison, then he could kidnap that guard and grab his phone to make the call to set off the bomb he’d previously sewn inside the henchman in the next cell? That would kill the guy who stole the mobsters’ money, thus enabling him to … er, what? Heath Ledger’s Joker may have been a psychopath, but he had a nerdish capacity for forward planning.”
Caught in the middle is District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) and his story gives the film a tremendous amount of gravitas. Had we ended this film with the death of Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel Dawes and the rise of Two-Face, we would have received the best cliffhanger you could ask for. (Gyllenhaal made a better match for Bale and Eckhart and gave Dawes some grit that Katie Holmes could not muster in the first film.)
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.
Also, they forgot to make us care about Bruce Wayne. Christian Bale growls nicely as Batman and looks pretty dressed as the millionaire but he essentially has nothing to do. He supports Dent, pines over Dawes and that’s about it. This is, after all, a Batman movie and after building up the character so well in Batman Begins, Nolan virtually ignores him here.
Instead he works on grandiose concepts such as the hero Gotham needs and the hero Batman needs to be for his city. We end with Batman a fugitive and Gordon smashing the Bat-Signal but it didn’t have to be that way. Batman is the city’s protector because its elected officials failed the populace. It took a vigilante to attack the corruption which, as far as we know, remains. Gordon could rely on Batman when he could not count on the Mayor or his own forces.
In between character moments, we have lots of large action set pieces, each of which could have benefitted from better editing so the audience can tell what’s happening and shot with the less-is-more philosophy. The hospital sequence the boat sequence and the truck race all could have benefitted from judicious trimming.
Nolan is painting on a very large canvass with lots of grand notions and themes but somehow lost sight of his primary character and his relationship to the city that birthed him. With luck, the third film will return its focus on Batman/Bruce Wayne and not spin out of control with multiple villains and excessive action sequences.
The plain vanilla DVD looks and sounds terrific with no extras.
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.http://www.igp-scifi.com
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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?