The Dark Knight

[last days of gerry the elephant]

Spoilers


Batman is a childhood treasure to me. He's the only super hero I ever truly bought into and followed with the utmost interest as I got older. Everything started with Burton's Batman and continued on with Batman: The Animated Series. I still watch those cartoons and also the Burton original. When I came to watch Batman Begins I was suspicious about a lot of the technical details, but I still enjoyed the film on a basic level because it was a rendering of Batman that did remind me of why I loved the character. The film rationalized a lot of technical details, but was wonderfully inventive with adding the Raz Ah Gaul plotline to describe his beginnings, among other things.

The sadness for me is that The Dark Knight is neither very good technically nor does it even remind me of my basic intrinsic interest in the character of Batman. Nolan in his reimagination has drained the character of all his essential qualities. He has made Batman and the series to be dramatic foil for something more, but in his idea to transcend the super hero genre I believe he has made a film that isn't even technically a Batman film.

My problems begin with something everybody is complimenting. People love that the tone and structure of the film has more to do with a crime drama than it does a super hero film. The first thing I noticed about the film was that Nolan wanted to take on a complicated plot with detailed analysis of the mob scene in Gotham City. The first half of the film is an exploration into how the city is taking on new methods to combat the mafia. The film could be argued as inducting itself into social analysis because it does look at multiple levels of crime and bureacy within the city.

I believe the film is interested in all these details, but none of the interest is really about a social analysis of a fictional city. The main interest of mafia focus is to show a system of order within the criminal world so the entrance of the Joker becomes that more embrasive because he totally disregards the rules, but the film just dedicates too much time and energy to what should have been just a story in the background or a subplot at best. The major problem is that the first half of the film is about something that is mainly meant to get the audience to understand that the Joker is a threat to order on all levels of life. A very simple message to the audience that could have been illustrated much easier and in a much simpler way. It really had nothing to do with social interest. That's absurd.

The tone reminded of Heat in that it was a straight laced story of professional killers and heroes acting professional, but as much that talk intrigues the audiences, it has no dramatic core or deeper meaning to it. The first half of the Dark Knight is much more interesting because of the plot ideas it has to imagine Batman in China going after a businessman in James Bond fashion. The fact that the film was able to do that without great question of the storyline is the most successful thing about it, but that has nothing to do with who Batman is or what he is about. It has everything to do with the wheels of a great plot idea turning. Heat is a fascinating movie, but it is a movie of an operatic movie style meant to allure the audience instead of getting them to sympathize with deeper moral questions.

The main problem in the film has to do with Batman. Once the film begins we are already knee deep in the storyline described above. Batman is the man who moves his way through out the puzzle to catch the mobsters and does so with cool confidence. We're interested because when we question his intelligence we see he was already a step ahead, but Batman is first served up to us as just a know it all.

The transition to his darker and more personal side becomes ridiculous. His character is frustrated with Joker's tactics because it leaves him immobile and unsure about how to react so we begin to notice Batman randomly walking into public situations and beating everyone up. When he does this we don't see him dealing with his problem to need to control everything, but as him just being Batman and intimidating the bad guys. The tone of these attacks replicate the cool crime drama tone only. It is further down the story that characters like Alfred and Lucious Fox began to tell Batman and the audience of what his problem really is. Lucious Fox even reveals things Batman has done to signify his deep character conflicts that the audience had no chance to be aware of. Their words are meant to be the dramatic ingrediants for us when the film should have made us aware of Batman's control issues beforehand. It should have laced the actions and happenings of Batman with their dramatic significance before they happened.

Then there is the question of his presence and tone. In Burton's original Batman did little actual fighting. Numerous scenes in the movie were about his presence and the fear he put into characters. The fights after saving Vicky Vale involve him doing stuff to bad guys, but it was minimal. The only other major fights were at the end on the roof top with the Joker's main men. The film was awesome to strike a tone with him that he was a character in the shadows and represented an idea. Batman Begins had the storyline to say he was an idea to crime figures, but Dark Knight shows him as just a cool operator of punishing people. When he enters an impossible situation, he does it with little suave and enters just from dark corners. The meat of the scenes then transition into him engaging in complicated martial arts and beating up everyone. I thought Batman Begins had a little too much of this because it smacks of Jason Bourne envy, but I felt the movie kept it to a decent minimum. I felt like Dark Knight abandonded the original tone of Batman entirely and purely focused on his fighting capabilities. In two seconds flat he would enter an impossible situation and spend three minutes beating up everyone. Little tone of Batman with how much the focus was on his physical attributes.

People may believe it showed this because Batman was in doubt about himself, but the tone of most of the fights match up with the tone of first half of the film: that Batman and Bruce Wayne are second guessed by others but rise to show they are smarter than everyone else. To show Batman was in true doubt or still learning would show him eventually lose in some of these impossible fighting situations, but he never does. His character has as much intricacy as an old Steven Segal character. Segal's characters would beat everyone up and he was meant to be portrayed as someone filled with emotional problems, but it always showed it with him just randomly beating up people only. The bulk of Batman's characterization is through this way as well. Sure, other characters and plot lines also come up to try to define his problems, but they come up much later in the film. Wayne's relationship with Rachel is only given a few scenes while Fox and Alfred spell out way too much about Wayne's problems. If you want to measure up the first half of the film for emotional inspection than a lot of it just resembles a bad Segeal movie.

Then there is the Joker. His character is by far the most interesting part of the film, but Nolan adds an old bad technique in which to portray him. Nolan always has his appearances coinside with elaborate criminal plots. It reminds me of Memento when the characterization of the characters were wrapped in an elaborate plot. Burton's original had Joker as a better presence. He was able to dominate more scenes and the audience was able to make sense of who he was from his actions. In Nolan's version we make sense of him from his complicated crime ideas. There are few times when Nolan goes to the character to just see him interact. Nolan realizes he needs to give the Joker some more meat so he allows him to make up lines about a troubled childhood, but the Joker doesn't need such an explanation. He just needs more time. The audience can believe some characters are just psychotic. I wish the film would have granted the Joker more physical time to interact with other characters and show how he was to develop himself. Instead we got a lot of talk about who he is from other characters and a lot of unnecessary explanation about his childhood. Nolan wanted to represent the Joker as a force, but explaining him that way didn't help.

Then there is Heath Ledger's performance. The good is that Ledger was able to imagine the Joker to be this way. I couldn't have pictured such a Joker but Ledger does it and pushes it to the extreme that was necessary. I just don't believe the creation was that great because Ledger focuses a lot of his role on make uo, vocal tone and physical gestures. It seems like he created a character that will be very easy for anyone else to mimic or copy. At least with Nicholson's performance you have Nicholson using a lot of his personality to will the character. No one else could do the role the way he did it. There is good in keeping a lot of your essential personality part of a role because it allows you to staple that role. It allows you to use essentials as an actor no one else can copy. All actors know how to mimic physical gestures and can do voice copies so the sad note about Ledger's performance is that had so little to do with Ledger himself. He truly concealed himself but that meant making a role I believe was a little too simplistic.

Then there is Harvey Dent and how he becomes Two Face. It's sad that a major character like this is only served up to come into existence and then immediately die. Some believe his character will live on, but I can't assume that will happen. What Two Face rising to and immediately dying means that the film was too casual and happy with the dramatic endings. In one scene you have Rachel die in a tragic fashion. That scene had the weight and meat to end a film. She was a major character and her death should have begun a new chapter for everyone involved. It did for Two Face but his character was immediately wiped out. That's ridiculous. You don't kill off a character of such importance so quickly especially when he was created out of one of the most important dramatic sequences for the entire movie. The film tries to add on meaning to his death by explaining how Batman became the Dark Knight from it, but that's rubbish. The final 20 minutes of the film had more dramatic happenings and changes than the rest of the whole film. The piling on of dramatic moments just reminded me of Spiderman 3. It tried to write off answers for every character when it could have let one situation define the movie and just explore the new subjects more in the next film, but everything had to be answered, whether it needed to or not. The film had too many endings to be legitimate.


People applaud Nolan for doing Batman anew, but I believe in the process he lost of a lot essential qualities about Batman that I loved. I believe this film was more a crime drama than it was a Batman film. One critic said it was a crime drama that just happened to have Batman in it. I concur.

That's a solid review and I agree with plenty of what you said, but towards the end it seems like you're brushing it off as a "crime drama". The idea is rooted back to Todd McFarlane and Spawn, his vision of a motion picture with his beloved super hero was mainly to be centered around the crime and city opposed to the actual super hero (Spawn). I thought the idea was brilliant when I read about it some 8 years ago... Now, with the Dark Knight, we see something similar but not quite. It's definitely refreshing to see the twist Nolan decided to take with the Batman franchise (a rather cheap attempt at McFarlane's vision), but the presence of Batman in the scenes he is in are just too prominent and vivid to dismiss the reality of the film being indeed about Batman.

The limits could be pushed more in that area, having him just linger in the shadows during scenes without making an extravagant entrance. Also, he doesn't have to speak every chance he gets. His words should be minimal, I'm sure such a hi-tech superhero can figure out means of communication without actually appearing in person. I'm one of the people that don't mind the Batman voice, even in the Nolan version, I just happen to think it was overused and that cheapens it.

[Gold Trumpet]

I have no problems with attempts to change up the Batman series. Nolan is ambitious and should be, but making this film a crime drama first lead to a lot of problems. I understand how you see it parallel something more, but I think you're being a little too hopeful. whatever the intentions, the film should have had Joker, Batman (in a better prescribed tone) and Two Face more in the foreground and the societal depictions more in the background. The essence of character for Batman is most important and I felt it was lost in this film.

Even if I had control of the Batman series I would make enough changes to make the series look nothing like earlier incarnations, but I do understand a few essentials need to be carried over.

[pete]

The meat of the scenes then transition into him engaging in complicated martial arts and beating up everyone. I thought Batman Begins had a little too much of this because it smacks of Jason Bourne envy, but I felt the movie kept it to a decent minimum. I felt like Dark Knight abandonded the original tone of Batman entirely and purely focused on his fighting capabilities. In two seconds flat he would enter an impossible situation and spend three minutes beating up everyone. Little tone of Batman with how much the focus was on his physical attributes.

I disagree; Batman does away with the henchmen in that fashion, but his struggles with the main villains always required degrees of psychology - as they tried to convince each other of their real worth and what the world was really like.  Batman subdued Joker through force, only to suffer awful consequences as he failed to get Joker to talk at all.  The climatic struggle between the two was more interesting because Batman was able to make a point against what Joker believed to be true (though that in itself got wrapped with 10,000 other characters at stake as well), it was the same thing with Two-Face's dilemma at the end - the characters exchanged a lot of their own perspectives before trading blows; they did a lot of convincing.  This was different from Batman Begins, which I thought was weak all around in terms of conflict resolution, both in terms of spectacle as well as drama.  I know the struggles obviously focus a lot on the technology and the pyrotechnics, but I think the screenplay does try to boil them down to the differences in beliefs as much as it can, right before it ventures into Star Wars territory, anyways.

[Gold Trumpet]

The meat of the scenes then transition into him engaging in complicated martial arts and beating up everyone. I thought Batman Begins had a little too much of this because it smacks of Jason Bourne envy, but I felt the movie kept it to a decent minimum. I felt like Dark Knight abandonded the original tone of Batman entirely and purely focused on his fighting capabilities. In two seconds flat he would enter an impossible situation and spend three minutes beating up everyone. Little tone of Batman with how much the focus was on his physical attributes.

I disagree; Batman does away with the henchmen in that fashion, but his struggles with the main villains always required degrees of psychology - as they tried to convince each other of their real worth and what the world was really like.  Batman subdued Joker through force, only to suffer awful consequences as he failed to get Joker to talk at all.  The climatic struggle between the two was more interesting because Batman was able to make a point against what Joker believed to be true (though that in itself got wrapped with 10,000 other characters at stake as well), it was the same thing with Two-Face's dilemma at the end - the characters exchanged a lot of their own perspectives before trading blows; they did a lot of convincing.  This was different from Batman Begins, which I thought was weak all around in terms of conflict resolution, both in terms of spectacle as well as drama.  I know the struggles obviously focus a lot on the technology and the pyrotechnics, but I think the screenplay does try to boil them down to the differences in beliefs as much as it can, right before it ventures into Star Wars territory, anyways.

I'm not going to say you're wrong, but it takes forever for Batman to get to the point when he does deal with the main villians. There are enough fights and actions scenes to exhaust 3 versions of Burton's original Batman so by the time that Batman does meet up with the Joker and the script does take consideration of the theme I felt like it was all too little too late. I enjoyed some of the later scenes and developments, but so much about the early tone in this film completely put me off. Besides, the fact that the script took notice of the themes so late into the film runs parallel with my other complaints about the film trying to do too much too late in the film with the character issues.




Also, did anyone notice the amazing recovery by Roberts character? Batman throws him off a building and the fall obviously breaks both of his legs but he reappears by the end of the film walking comfortably. I didn't think the timeline in the film extended long enough for him to make a full recovery.

[Kal]

I dont think he was walking comfortably? I think he was wearing crutches or a cane? Not sure I though the same but then I noticed that.

[picolas]

spoilers

He has made Batman and the series to be dramatic foil for something more

did you mean to say 'a dramatic foil'? i know it's just a silly nitpick but i almost like the idea of dramatic foil if you meant that.

the first half of the film is about something that is mainly meant to get the audience to understand that the Joker is a threat to order on all levels of life. A very simple message to the audience that could have been illustrated much easier and in a much simpler way.

what do you suggest? the money burning scene solidified, to me, that he is batman's greatest enemy because he's not in it for the money even after going to such great lengths to attain it. he's truly a student of a philosophy like batman.

The tone reminded of Heat in that it was a straight laced story of professional killers and heroes acting professional, but as much that talk intrigues the audiences, it has no dramatic core or deeper meaning to it.

why not? i've read a snippet of an article comparing batman to bush and the joker to bin laden. i think the comparison is apt in many ways and that the application of justice is examined from several interesting, 'deep' perspectives within the film.

The first half of the Dark Knight is much more interesting because of the plot ideas it has to imagine Batman in China going after a businessman in James Bond fashion. The fact that the film was able to do that without great question of the storyline is the most successful thing about it, but that has nothing to do with who Batman is or what he is about.

it has so much to do with what he is. he's above the law, but the powers at be direct him and accept his help.

Nolan realizes he needs to give the Joker some more meat so he allows him to make up lines about a troubled childhood, but the Joker doesn't need such an explanation. He just needs more time. The audience can believe some characters are just psychotic. I wish the film would have granted the Joker more physical time to interact with other characters and show how he was to develop himself. Instead we got a lot of talk about who he is from other characters and a lot of unnecessary explanation about his childhood. Nolan wanted to represent the Joker as a force, but explaining him that way didn't help.

i'm confused. he made that stuff up. the multiple origin monologues establish his enigmatic nature, which further speaks to the idea that without batman there would be no joker.

The good is that Ledger was able to imagine the Joker to be this way. I couldn't have pictured such a Joker but Ledger does it and pushes it to the extreme that was necessary. I just don't believe the creation was that great because Ledger focuses a lot of his role on make uo, vocal tone and physical gestures. It seems like he created a character that will be very easy for anyone else to mimic or copy. At least with Nicholson's performance you have Nicholson using a lot of his personality to will the character. No one else could do the role the way he did it. There is good in keeping a lot of your essential personality part of a role because it allows you to staple that role. It allows you to use essentials as an actor no one else can copy. All actors know how to mimic physical gestures and can do voice copies so the sad note about Ledger's performance is that had so little to do with Ledger himself. He truly concealed himself but that meant making a role I believe was a little too simplistic.

i thoroughly disagree. look at the hundreds of daniel plainview impressions floating around. none of them are as good as ddl, and nothing about ddl in person is remotely plainviewish. acting is not simply performing a certain way. in your opening lines you acknowledge you couldn't imagine the joker the way ledger did. that's half the point. he imagined something previously unseen. maybe lots of other actors could  do a perfect "ledger joker" (i also think a lot of actors could do a perfect "nicholson joker" for that matter) but none of those people could've concocted exactly what ledger did given the material. i feel acting is mostly in the interpretation, not the execution. though they are very much linked to each other.

Then there is Harvey Dent and how he becomes Two Face. It's sad that a major character like this is only served up to come into existence and then immediately die. Some believe his character will live on, but I can't assume that will happen. What Two Face rising to and immediately dying means that the film was too casual and happy with the dramatic endings.

i must say i love the idea of two-face as a guy with nothing to lose on a suicidal rampage. it makes him far more threatening and unstoppable than a guy who doesn't necessarily want to die. i think his death works dramatically because he was in constant physical and psychological pain and had a death wish. it's very difficult to sustain that. especially since he has no interest in stealing money.

One critic said it was a crime drama that just happened to have Batman in it. I concur.

it's an ensemble for sure, but all the crime drama comes from the presence of batman and the questioning of what he really is. which i found fascinating.

[Gold Trumpet]

what do you suggest? the money burning scene solidified, to me, that he is batman's greatest enemy because he's not in it for the money even after going to such great lengths to attain it. he's truly a student of a philosophy like batman.

You can keep a similar storyline and acquire similar results, but just realize most of what happens in the first half of the film leaves us to desire more from the Joker. Yes, because of the criminal plots we understand he is Batman's greatest enemy, but don't make that the only way we get to understand him. Make him a true character in the Batman world and explore him on a general level. Other people also wished they got a more vivid portait of him in the film. Nolan short changes him by only associating him with his devious plots.

why not? i've read a snippet of an article comparing batman to bush and the joker to bin laden. i think the comparison is apt in many ways and that the application of justice is examined from several interesting, 'deep' perspectives within the film.

Are you serious? I think you're going to have to explain your idea instead of me explain mine because that's ridiculous and as much of an over interpretation as you can get. Nolan has repeatedly referenced that he made the Dark Knight with influence from James Bond films for its tonal structure. It means he wanted the crime elements of the story to embrace its stylistic influences more which is the opposite of providing for a good organic storyline.

it has so much to do with what he is. he's above the law, but the powers at be direct him and accept his help.

Rationalization. I actually didn't give a shit that he went to China, but I was annoyed by the tone the subplot had in making him look more like a secret agent than Batman. You can tell Nolan was very impressed with the technical ideas of how Batman extracted the businessman and got away so only focused on highlighting that part which is the part that had little to do with Batman's mystique. It reminded me of what a Bond film would be interested in.

i'm confused. he made that stuff up. the multiple origin monologues establish his enigmatic nature, which further speaks to the idea that without batman there would be no joker.

It didn't come off that way. He only had a few times to explain his past and each time he said things that pretty much coincided with each other so even if it was meant to explain his enigmatic nature or whatever, it looked like to the audience it was based on truth. Each story had something to do with the other. All were about an abusive father. He didn't use the same story each time but he did say stories that seemed to come out of the same vein.

i thoroughly disagree. look at the hundreds of daniel plainview impressions floating around. none of them are as good as ddl, and nothing about ddl in person is remotely plainviewish. acting is not simply performing a certain way. in your opening lines you acknowledge you couldn't imagine the joker the way ledger did. that's half the point. he imagined something previously unseen. maybe lots of other actors could  do a perfect "ledger joker" (i also think a lot of actors could do a perfect "nicholson joker" for that matter) but none of those people could've concocted exactly what ledger did given the material. i feel acting is mostly in the interpretation, not the execution. though they are very much linked to each other.

The difference with Plainview and the Joker is that Plainview is based on characteristics that only a talented actor could accomplish. Daniel Day Lewis creates a facade of mannerisms and vocal tones to create him, but the role leads to points where only the actor Daniel Day Lewis could have accomplished the role. I speak of scenes when Plainview shows inner anger and despair over what he lost when he realizes the brother he thought he met again never really was him. Day Lewis the actor does have to recall old moments of other performances to dig at those scenes. Ledger's Joker keeps his character just crazy on the one level of craziness he creates for the character. A structure for a great character is with how rounded it is. Joker isn't, but maybe he never was meant to be. It could be a no win situation for him but the fact I recognize Jack in Nicholson's interpretation of Joker means only his personality could have accomplished it. When people mimic Nicholson, they do so for his voice, but his role is based on numerous facets of who he is and that can't be copied. It has everything to do with Nicholson's acting intangibles. Ledger plays a foreign character that doesn't resemble him at all. Because it is such a make up job you can replicate it. Day Lewis had no make up so he gave the character significant depth by just his own looks. Not so with Ledger at all.

i must say i love the idea of two-face as a guy with nothing to lose on a suicidal rampage. it makes him far more threatening and unstoppable than a guy who doesn't necessarily want to die. i think his death works dramatically because he was in constant physical and psychological pain and had a death wish. it's very difficult to sustain that. especially since he has no interest in stealing money.

You're short changing a major character in the series. Is that as interesting as a guy who was Bruce Wayne's best friend and became a crime figure, thus always staying as a constant reminder of Batman's limitation and defeats to not be able to do everything? In the cartoon Batman tries to make himself available to Two Face hoping he will see Harvey Dent come out but slowly gives up when he sees Dent is lost forever. A plot line to show Batman losing Harvey Dent to the crippling nature of psychosis slowly but surely would be an awesome way to dig at the nature of Batman and his isolation with being unable to retain friends but with your description we get a very generic idea of love lost and craziness created. The most important character in the series was killed off so the film could enjoy a 15 minute free for all of someone gone mad? Seems a little like a joke to me.

it's an ensemble for sure, but all the crime drama comes from the presence of batman and the questioning of what he really is. which i found fascinating.

I admit the film gives the themes good lip service at the end, but it's all futile.

[I Love a Magician]

i'm confused. he made that stuff up. the multiple origin monologues establish his enigmatic nature, which further speaks to the idea that without batman there would be no joker.

It didn't come off that way. He only had a few times to explain his past and each time he said things that pretty much coincided with each other so even if it was meant to explain his enigmatic nature or whatever, it looked like to the audience it was based on truth. Each story had something to do with the other. All were about an abusive father. He didn't use the same story each time but he did say stories that seemed to come out of the same vein.

one was about a father, another had to do with a wife and no mention of a father

[©brad]

- heath owns this movie. not a single other actor in the thing can hold a candle to him.
- there are moments in this where it took every fiber of my being not to just jump up and down in my seat and cheer. i almost felt like i was watching a concert at some parts. the audience was great.
- that being said, this is ADD filmmaking. the film never stops to take a breath. each scene felt rushed and truncated, often missing emotional beats they clearly wanted to hit. as a result it's a bit exhausting and definitely felt long.
- i felt some of the editing was pretty sloppy and confusing. characters would disappear and reappear without explanation (why didn't we see Dent and Rachel being abducted?) again, i wished the film just slowed down. i don't think there's more than 4 consecutive minutes without suspense-inducing score. 
- i thought bale was actually the weakest in this. while the words coming out of his mouth were layered and interesting, his portrayal was so one-dimensional. he has one look the entire film, and at times i found myself caring more/rooting for the joker.
- i like aaron eckhart, but his two-face felt forced, and when he shared the frame with joker, well, there was no contest. generally, two-face was not nearly as interesting or captivating as the joker.
- i would agree with the camp that found batman's voice way over-the-top. many of his lines got laughs (and not in the good way)
- i'm not really a motorcycle guy, but i want that motorcycle. like bad.

[Gold Trumpet]

i'm confused. he made that stuff up. the multiple origin monologues establish his enigmatic nature, which further speaks to the idea that without batman there would be no joker.

It didn't come off that way. He only had a few times to explain his past and each time he said things that pretty much coincided with each other so even if it was meant to explain his enigmatic nature or whatever, it looked like to the audience it was based on truth. Each story had something to do with the other. All were about an abusive father. He didn't use the same story each time but he did say stories that seemed to come out of the same vein.

one was about a father, another had to do with a wife and no mention of a father

Alright, I step down from that criticism.

[modage]

GT

the Burton films are not the Bible.  Batman Returns has often been accused of being a Tim Burton film and less a Batman film, but I love it anyway.  i'm up for different interpretations of the character as long as they are successful.  who says Batman couldn't be a crime drama?   also: despite Burton's films having minimal action sequences in them, that doesn't mean that the comics don't.  of the 2 1/2 hour running time i would think over 2 hours would still be not action, so what's the problem here?

Batman going to Hong Kong is to further illustrate that "Batman has no limits".  as the Joker points out leaving Gotham City is not going to deter him.  it also broadens the scope of the film like Begins to include a world outside of Gotham.

you completely missed the boat on the Joker backstory.  they're all BS.  that's the point, it doesn't matter what made him this way.  he is this way and a backstory would be too convenient.  he had two separate stories as to how he got the scars.  how would he get them when he was a kid and then get them again when he had a wife?  c'mon dude, read any interview with Nolan and Co. to confirm this.  sorry you were confused.   

You can keep a similar storyline and acquire similar results, but just realize most of what happens in the first half of the film leaves us to desire more from the Joker. Yes, because of the criminal plots we understand he is Batman's greatest enemy, but don't make that the only way we get to understand him. Make him a true character in the Batman world and explore him on a general level. Other people also wished they got a more vivid portait of him in the film. Nolan short changes him by only associating him with his devious plots.

that doesn't mean anything.  understanding him ruins everything.  you realize that.  the best way to make a villain not scary is to 'understand' him and why he's doing something and what made him that way.  the joker arrives in the film fully formed, only as the film goes on do you understand what he is doing.

why not? i've read a snippet of an article comparing batman to bush and the joker to bin laden. i think the comparison is apt in many ways and that the application of justice is examined from several interesting, 'deep' perspectives within the film.

Are you serious? I think you're going to have to explain your idea instead of me explain mine because that's ridiculous and as much of an over interpretation as you can get. Nolan has repeatedly referenced that he made the Dark Knight with influence from James Bond films for its tonal structure. It means he wanted the crime elements of the story to embrace its stylistic influences more which is the opposite of providing for a good organic storyline.

are YOU serious?  did you really think that any 9/11 parallels in this film were unintentional?  did you see Batman standing over the wreckage of the World Trade Center building?  it may not be as clear as Bush/Bin Laden but the theme of this film is clearly about justice and where is the line in trying to obtain it, trying to do whats right, failing.

i think this film went over your head.

[Stefen]

GT, it seems like you really went out of your way to NOT like this. I find it odd, since you're usually the first person to give credit to fluff when all others dismiss it as garbage. This is the type of movie that's fluff, but the kind of fluff that deserves praise. I'd think you'd be all over this flick (in a positive way)

I don't get you sometimes, good friend.

[Gold Trumpet]

the Burton films are not the Bible.  Batman Returns has often been accused of being a Tim Burton film and less a Batman film, but I love it anyway.  i'm up for different interpretations of the character as long as they are successful.  who says Batman couldn't be a crime drama?   also: despite Burton's films having minimal action sequences in them, that doesn't mean that the comics don't.  of the 2 1/2 hour running time i would think over 2 hours would still be not action, so what's the problem here?

Never said they were. In fact I just like the first one while I don't care too much about the second one, but while Burton shows he has little clue for handling a screenplay or even be able to make it somewhat interesting, he does know the right tone and mannerism in which to strike up Batman. If I had to compare the Burton original with the Dark Knight, I'd say the former is only about the character of Batman while the latter is an attempt to rejuvunate the storyline of the series. For various reasons I believe too much attention was paid on trying to innovate the storyline and not enough attention was paid on the character.

you completely missed the boat on the Joker backstory.  they're all BS.  that's the point, it doesn't matter what made him this way.  he is this way and a backstory would be too convenient.  he had two separate stories as to how he got the scars.  how would he get them when he was a kid and then get them again when he had a wife?  c'mon dude, read any interview with Nolan and Co. to confirm this.  sorry you were confused.   

Already admitted my mistake. It happens. Try to get some enjoyment out of this small victory for you.

that doesn't mean anything.  understanding him ruins everything.  you realize that.  the best way to make a villain not scary is to 'understand' him and why he's doing something and what made him that way.  the joker arrives in the film fully formed, only as the film goes on do you understand what he is doing.

You over interpret what I mean by understanding him. I never said I wanted his origins and reason for being who he is explained. In fact in my original review I said I didn't. Please pay attention to what I say, but come on, as the film is currently told, we have numerous characters trying to explain who he is. That's ridiculous. Just give the audience more time to be with the Joker for them to understand (relax) his nuances and appreciate the terror he strikes in people. I didn't want half the attempt to be spelled out in dialogue by characters.

are YOU serious?  did you really think that any 9/11 parallels in this film were unintentional?  did you see Batman standing over the wreckage of the World Trade Center building?  it may not be as clear as Bush/Bin Laden but the theme of this film is clearly about justice and where is the line in trying to obtain it, trying to do whats right, failing.

Realize what I commented on. All I said is that the film had no parallels to Batman being Bush and Joker being Bin Laden. That's going too far. I understand a lot of genre films like to recall 9/11 in non-specific ways when dealing with brutal subjects in a NYC setting. That's understandable. Nobody will take the film and interpret it as political but films have always recalled tragic settings going back to Godzilla movies with the atomic bombings. I accept that but I believe its wrong to get into political talk which is what you do with bringing up Bush and Bin Laden.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, it seems like you really went out of your way to NOT like this. I find it odd, since you're usually the first person to give credit to fluff when all others dismiss it as garbage. This is the type of movie that's fluff, but the kind of fluff that deserves praise. I'd think you'd be all over this flick (in a positive way)

I don't get you sometimes, good friend.

I really expected to like this. I was shocked I didn't. My level of dissapointment was comparable to the feelings I felt when watching There Will be Blood.

I feel more comfortable giving credit to fluff because all it tries to be is fluff. Those movies make no attempt to challenge my critical senses. The Dark Knight is ambitious and means to be more than just fluff so I unexpectedly saw my radar go up. I wasn't getting any enjoyment out of the first hour so I started to look at the film with different eyes. I love Batman, but this isn't Batman to me. It's an experiment gone wrong. I realize I can't just say that and expect to be believed in so I had to write a thorough review. Those are my feelings.

[Pozer]

you completely missed the boat on the Joker backstory.  they're all BS.  that's the point, it doesn't matter what made him this way.  he is this way and a backstory would be too convenient.  he had two separate stories as to how he got the scars.  how would he get them when he was a kid and then get them again when he had a wife?  c'mon dude, read any interview with Nolan and Co. to confirm this.  sorry you were confused.   

Already admitted my mistake. It happens. Try to get some enjoyment out of this small victory for you.

but does this mistake not show how hard you look for the negative in everything?

i wonder what it was you expected to like.  because judging from the trailers and as a follow up to Begins, it should have produced fulfillment.