The Dark Knight - Grading & Discussion

Their biggest concern was the fact that if Dent was found to be a murderer and torturer, then all of his work would be called into question, and in particular, his "spectacle" of putting 57 (?) mob bosses on trial at the same time would be thrown out and they would all be released, thus undoing their biggest step forward. Also, criminals were in general living in fear, not just from Batman, but from the fact that there was now laywers who were willing to do their jobs. If the Dent, Gotham's most fearless laywer and best shining hope, was again found to be dirty, along with a good chunk of the police force, Criminals wouldn't be nearly as scared and the city would likely return to the state it was in in Begins.

 

Yeah, but the indiscretions of the prosecutor don't constitute reversible error on appeal. So unless Dent was found to have been fabricating evidence or some other such thing, the fact that he later went on killing spree after suffering a debilitating trauma would make absolutely no difference to any of his convictions or the cases he was working on right before he went nuts.

 

I don't think it had anything to do with Dent's prosecution, or the members of the mob that he put in jail, but about Gotham's faith in believing that good can reign supreme and that Dent wasn't corruptible. It was about making Gotham still believe in Harvey Dent.

 

Ended up seeing this with a relative as a compromise everyone could live with. Happily, this is a step up from Batman Begins and reaches average level.

Improvements---no ninjas, Heath Ledger's flambuoyantly theatrical performance, fewer ghastly lines, characters mostly make sense inside a given scene, plot and theme are integrated.

Same old, same old---superficial nods towards realism clash stylistically with the LaLa Land story, confused and ridiculous tech, hysteria about "crime."

New---Silence of the Lambs and Saw visit the DC universe, suffering hero to the max, the climax isn't (why again does Bruce decide to take credit for Dent's murders? Really? Are you serious?)

I've seen comparisons to Godfather in three different locations (Peter Travers, Wired magazine and Locusmag.com's review by Gary Westfahl.)
Chris Nolan needs to get over himself and so called reviewers need to write their own reviews. There's nothing very deep about this movie and it sure isn't adult. I was thankful it wasn't as bad as Batman Begins.

And by the way, Alfred's little story about burning down the forest sounded so much like glorying in the old counterinsurgency warfare day. It was really repulsive having that kind of note sounded for a character who is supposed to be likable.

 

Then you obviously missed the point. He wasn't looking back on that incident with nostalgia; he was saddened by it. It's quite clear in Sir Michael Caine's performance.

 

^^^Then I didn't make my point clear. Michael Caine didn't play the scene like he was saddened or shamed, he played it like Alfred was telling Bruce something true about humanity. But the evil brigand was a boogeyman, an impossible terror made up to frighten. Unfortunately, the burning down the forest tactic has been used in real life wars, for nefarious reasons. Such a noxious intrusion into the world of the movie struck me as quite unpleasant.

 

It was subtle, but what you're saying wasn't there actually was there. Alfred's line about burning the forest down was clearly not meant to glorify the action; he was sad as he answered Bruce's question. I also find your assertion that movies should avoid referencing real-life horrors because such references are "unpleasant" to be patently ridiculous. It was a perfectly valid comparison for Alfred to make and it was not glorified in any manner as you claim it was.

 

It's still at #1 with almost 105,000 votes.

 

Remember the scene in the Mayor's office after the 57 mobsters are put on trial simultaniously. The mayor if the judge lets it happen, it'll immediately be appealed, and the only way he'll be able to get away with it at all is because the public likes him. Again, if he becomes a murderer, the public stops backing him, and if the public stops backing him, then his showboating prosecution will get shot down very quickly.

 

It's getting there. But then it has been only six days. The real test is six months down the road.

 

Exactly. We're comparing TDK to movies that have been out for years. What is the longevity going to be like for this one later on. It might be good, but I think our excitement is blinding us from reality at the moment.

 

Are you saying that Godfather, a movie that highly romanticized abusive families and murderers was deep and adult? It never struck me as more than pulp fiction melodrama very stylishly presented that managed to touch on some universal dramatic/ human themes (as a lot of pulp ficition meoldrama does) - but it was hardly high cinematic literature. It's as full of larger than life fantasy figures and nifty wish fulfillment as Dark Knight is.

 

Exactly. Most of Begins did take place there. According to one of the stories in "Gotham Knight" (which takes place in between the two films) The Narrows was never totally cleaned up. Citizens were evacuated and it was left as Arkham territory. The bridge was raised and is only lowered when the police have to go in. Therefore, no free people reside there and the mobsters would have moved all their headquarters and meeting places up into the main part of the city.

 

^ On screen yes, in the novel though (if you agree with what they have in them) there were still a scattered few citizens living in the Narrows. One of the storylines - about the writer who was Deadshot's first death) wanted to rejuvenate the narrows with affordable housing.

 

I gathered that the case had not moved much beyond the initial phase of arraignment. So, at this point, showing Dent be a raving lunatic, would likely have the same effect as showing Mark Furhman to be a racist. It would cast doubt on the prosecutions case. In this instance, it would be more damaging. Because of the novel nature of the charges, the prosecution would have to show a clear conspiracy for prosecution under RICO. Having the the prosecutor be a whack job would unravel that thread of evidence.

 

Even the first Godfather succeeds better at rising above the romanticization than Dark Knight. And while Dark Knight has only a small fraction of the godawful dialogue that Begins had, even the first Godfather doesn't have absurdities like Batman's speech to Gordon at the climax. As I recall, Travers for one specifically cited Godfather II, which is a real stretch. The Havana scenes show more real corruption. The overthrow of Batista lets in a peek of a world of real, live individuals, instead of the hermetically sealed puppet play in Dark Knight.

Don't get me wrong. The action scenes were still kind of boring and the climax was more emo than drama, but the movie was watchable, entertaining.

 

Especially a whack job who murdered police officers (even though they were corrupt). I wish they would have included the Holiday storyline though.

 

Well it only came out in Medieval England last night, saw it this morning myself.
Though I'd just make a quick little post, and sorry but I can't be arsed reading through 20 pages of comments thus far

I went for 'above average', but would have liked to have gone in between that and 'excellent'. It was an awesome film, but I dunno, maybe just overhyped a bit? All I mean is I wouldn't say it was the greatest movie I've ever seen.
I enjoyed it a lot, but I think though like Batman Begins I might like it more on later viewings

I'm sure everyone goes on about Ledger, and he was brilliant, but big props to Eckhart from me, a sterling turn. Man that face was hard to look at. That big eye ball!


Oh, and Batman's gravelly voice got a bit silly at times. Give that man a lozenge!

 

I voted average, I cant fault the acting, but it dragged out for too long, and it felt like too much of an ordeal, and there was so much misery going on for a minute I thought I was watching se7en, not batman.

I like my superhero films to be escapism from the horrors of the real world, were you leave the cinema smiling, not wanting to slit your wrists.

Micheal Caine seemed wasted, did they film all his scenes in a day? He wasnt much of a presence in the film, all that talk earlier in the year about how the joker was terrifying when he burst into the party, I thought he would have a scene with Alfred, so unless that was cut, I guess Caine was just watching from behind the camera.

 

Then you'll want to go watch Fantastic Four. The Batman and his world have finally been handled in the serious manner that they should be.