The Dark Knight: Review By Fallenlords

Sep 4th, 2008 by Fallenlords
Don't believe the hype!
  • OVERALL
    3.5
    GREAT
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
Somebody once said to me that if you see a crowd of people running one way, stop and think about running the other way. When the Dark Knight started getting such fabulous reviews I kept an open mind, perhaps here was a film that wasn't just loaded with hype and had a bit of substance. The film kept topping the charts and breaking records, it has an IMDB rating of 9.1. MovieWeb ratings of 5 stars and some great reviews. Surely this had to be the film of the year? So why now I am sitting here in absolute disbelief after seeing this film, and it is disbelief in a bad way and not a good way.

Perhaps my expectations were too high? But then I like Superhero flicks, I enjoyed the recent Ironman and Hulk. I like a good action movie, decent acting - I was looking forward to the late Heath Ledgers performance as The Joker. But to be honest this film is dull.

The film lacks any coherent story line or any reasoning. Acting is so-so, I can't say anybody gave a great performance. It lacked any humour, now if you like films to be dark and depressive fair enough. But 'Batman Begins' at least tried to inject the odd subtle bit of humour, through Alfred - Michael Caine’s character. In fact in comparison I would say Batman Begins is the better film and considering I wasn't too impressed with that one - it is saying something!

The Joker is reasonable, to me it is not an Oscar winning performance by any stretches of the imagination. I like Heath Ledger, I thought he was a great actor and films such as The Sin Eater (The Order) didn't get enough recognition in my opinion. But I have to be honest I preferred Jack Nicholson's take on this character. At least he played it with a diabolical sense of fun, stupidity and wit. I mean how seriously are we suppose to take a character that looks like a clown? Fair enough this Joker is dark, manic-depressive type of fodder. But with no real explanation about what turned him that way - apart from a few quips from The Joker himself. He just comes across as a psycho with a painted face.

Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) had too much of this film for my liking, he only gets interesting once he has half his face burned away. Even then he is only slightly more interesting when he turns into Two-Face. Gordon (Gary Oldman) is in this too much as well, I think there is just too much screen time for what I consider to be superfluous characters. The return of Rachel Dawes, now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, I thought was a mistake. I just didn't see the point of that character. With Katie Holmes not returning to play the part, I would have had a new character and changed things around a bit. Rachel is the love interest between Bruce and Harvey, so we have a little love triangle going on. But I can't say it added anything to the film. It just gave Harvey, sorry Two-Face, a reason to be miffed and Bruce a reason to be upset.

Yes it has lots of action, but it is action without reason or purpose. The Joker just wants to blow stuff up, great. Batman wants to stop him, great. That is pretty much it. Throw in a few chases, a bit of fighting, some half reasonable effects and you have 'The Dark Knight'. Dark, moody, depressive and particularly dull in places.

Christian Bale is fine as Batman, but to my mind it could have been anybody. It doesn't take a great actor to just waltz around looking poe faced and then but on a deep gnarly voice when you don the Batman suit. Various people have proved that one in the past.

I liked Morgan Freeman, but then I like Morgan Freeman in most things (apart from Wanted). He is fine as the tech guy/CEO and to my mind had about the right amount of screen time. He just continued his character from the previous film, as did Alfred, Michael Caine.

I have to say I feel like I am a little 'in shock' at the moment. I was not expecting to thoroughly enjoy this film, because I am not a huge Batman fan. But I did expect to at least want to see it again, I did expect to admit that it was a good film if not to my particular tastes. But I am just shell-shocked, how can so many people think this is so good? I would say Hellboy The Golden Army is better, I would even say Ironman is better.

I just don't know what has happened with this film, perhaps it is another Titanic. Where everybody for some reason, because they get so caught up the hype, think it is really good. Then a few years later people slowly start to realise – actually it wasn’t that great after all.

Do you like this review?

Comments (27)

  1. Fallenlords

    I agree to disagree :)

    2 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  2. Remy72883

    i agree with you on Avatar completly i see it as a movie for the simple minded to see with lots of pretty colors and imagines, i see were not gonna see eye to eye on this subject so i just say let us agree to disagree. lol. also i think this is one of many of Heath's greatest performance's.

    2 years agoby @remy72883Flag

  3. Fallenlords

    A death of an actor prior to a film release always has an impact. Ali being the greatest fighter is subjective and what being black has to do with anything I don't know. Greatest heavyweight I would go with Rocky Marciano 49 fights, 49 wins, 43 KO's ...won every fight in his professional career when boxing was boxing.

    Perhaps you might like Psychopathic villains, I was hoping (and the first ten minutes of the film gave me high hopes) that here we were dealing with a diabolical criminal mastermind. But the Joker in this 'has lost the plot', what was his ultimate aim to just cause mayhem ... well that made no sense. Perhaps it makes sense in a comic where the story can be expanded week on week, but we are talking film here. It needs a beginning a middle and an end. Underlying reasons for the actions people take, other than just being mad. This was not Ledgers finest performance by any stretch of the imagination. This was an action film, not a character based film. Personally I don't think it's hard to act moody and depressive, in fact enough actors do it without thinking at the moment.

    This film was uber-hyped before it even hit a cinema screen. The death of Heath Ledger only compounded the hype and drew it not only the fans of Batman and the genre, but also those with a morbid curiosity. It hamstring'ed the critics who I personally think do have an influence on a films success. Why else did people go to see Titanic? Why else have people gone to see Avatar? Two dire films in my book that both lack imagination, but as usual the sheep are herded into their pens and 'told' what great films they are watching and for some reason they believe the hype... very strange.

    2 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  4. Remy72883

    I love how people say. Oh the film did what it did cause of his untimely death. That's such bullsh*t. That's like Saying Ali was the greatest fighter because he was black. IT'S TALENT. Plain and simple. Jack's joker was good, i give him that, for the times all the stops couldn't be pulled out then, so i get it. Now im not denying Jack Nicholson is great and talented actor. But compare the two Joker's. Jack's version was more cartoon and goofy in a playful tone. Which for the time was good. Heath's Joker was psychotic and highly intelligent with a great philosophy. Jack's Joker for the time was good. But with films going deeper and deeper into the darkness of villains. Heath's was perfect for the comics and an updated version of the character. We got someone with that mind set if given the right real life circ*mstances and background would act if given the right opportunity to do so. Heath's version was the only one Ive seen who not only tried but succeeded in showing us the true prince of crime in the world of Gotham. Heath's joker showed the mob how pathetic they were for caring about paper. And you like how your villains to have a motive for what they do right. I honestly hate when they do cause its the same sad story. Someone did this or that and its all about revenge. Heath's joker wanted to prove to people how dark down the rabbit hole they would go. And personally i love when a villain doesn't have a reason because its more intense and adds a little bit of scare to it. Not having a motive but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not only more insane but creepy. To say that the film got hailed because of Heath's death is not only wrong but disrespectful to his talent as a character actor. Your saying that millions of people went and saw a film because of what the critics said. NO. People went and saw the film because word from mouth advertising told them not only it would be money well spent but one hell of a film to see in theaters that they would remember for many years to come and have a great cinematic film experience they wont forget.

    2 years agoby @remy72883Flag

  5. Fallenlords

    The only reason Heath Ledger got much credit for this film at all was because of his untimely death. His death had an overall impact on this film, making it so that critics were a little afraid to slate it too much as it would appear disrespectful. This is a mediocre film only made memorable because of tragic real life circ*mstances.

    Personally I consider Jack Nicholson to be a fine actor. What sort of performance can you expect from him in a Batman film directed by Tim Burton.... the overall look and feel I think has more to do with the loopy nutjob. No I am not a fan of Tim Burton.

    2 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  6. Remy72883

    you said it yourself jack's version was and this is a quote from you "At least he played it with a diabolical sense of fun, stupidity and wit" key word STUPID. No where in the film was he diabolical he was a moron running around showing no brains what so ever. Heath's version was always 3 steps ahead and vicious and i dont know if you ever read the comics but in some of them the joker would make up a story to tell you how he got that way right before he killed you. The mystery is better than some lame plot because its leaves your mind to imagine how or why did he come to be that way. Obviously you have no imagination and by your review NO TASTE.

    2 years agoby @remy72883Flag

  7. Emmytt

    you have no taste

    2 years agoby @emmyttFlag

  8. kyle_hannah

    Heath Leger actually acted Jack Nicholson showed up played Jack Nicholson and collected his paycheck

    3 years agoby @kyle-hannahFlag

  9. kyle_hannah

    Lacked plot? That's quite the odd accusation my friend the film was almost ventirely plot and deep plot unlike the family friendly Iron man or entirely action driven Incredible Hulk.

    3 years agoby @kyle-hannahFlag

  10. Fallenlords

    It all depends on your frame of reference. What makes it a good film to one person, might make it a bad film to another.

    To me it lacked plot, what was the ultimate motive of The Joker - to just cause mayhem. Why, just because he felt like it! Why would he burn a huge pile of money? The only thing he seemed to enjoy was causing anarchy. I like my bad guys to have reason or motive for things. Just being a nutter doesn't really cut it for me.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  11. The Dark Knight

    there is only like 2 users on this site that don't like this movie!

    4 years agoby @thedarkknight23Flag

  12. TPOJ

    FallenLords, I forgot to put jk on my post. Whoops and sorry. But this film was great.

    4 years agoby @tpojFlag

  13. Fallenlords

    This film has received such high scores, so many great reviews. That I was expecting something pretty darn special. No doubt if I watch this film in a year from now, I will probably think it is fine. By that time the hype will have died down and I will take it for what it is overall. I admit my expectations were high which could be part of the problem, but they were only high because of the hype.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  14. The Dark Knight

    It did live up to the hype lol

    4 years agoby @thedarkknight23Flag

  15. Fallenlords

    With such a persuasive argument, you have me convinced!

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  16. JR

    it lives up to the hype f*ggot.

    4 years agoby @supbitchFlag

  17. Fallenlords

    Now I know why I didn't enjoy this film, it is obviously beyond my level of intellectual maturity.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  18. The Dark Knight

    F*CK YOU

    4 years agoby @thedarkknight23Flag

  19. Psycho

    F*ck you this movie was awesome the only reason why you probaly did not like it because you had a dick your ass.

    4 years agoby @physco-123Flag

  20. Soylent Green:The Devil's Eyes

    Knock, knock.

    Who's there?

    F*ck.

    F*ck Who?

    F*ck You.

    4 years agoby @jcisawesomeFlag

  21. Fallenlords

    Just because I have a difference of opinion doesn't make me a troll. I didn't like the film; in fact I thought Hellboy, Ironman and even the Hulk were better films. To my mind people have got so carried away with the surrounding hype of this film, that their judgement is blinkered.

    If it such a great film, explain the reason's why it is such a great film?

    To me parts of the film were ridiculous to say the least, firing RPG's from a moving truck, a man with a cell phone/bomb inside him complains of a bad stomach. Harvey Dent getting up and walking out of hospital after having half his face is burnt away, The Joker burning a pile of money for no good reason!

    Then there were some interesting parts, dressing the hostages up as clowns and taping guns to their hands, the opening sequence with the bank raid. The Batman pickup via a moving plane.

    But to my mind there was nothing mind-blowing about the acting, the special effects or the story. In essence I found it to be a huge disappointment.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  22. TPOJ

    You didn't even see the movie or you're just a TROLL. Next!

    4 years agoby @tpojFlag

  23. ed_wood

    Amazing film.

    4 years agoby @ed-woodFlag

  24. Phatlightning

    someone is looking for attention.

    4 years agoby @sxers2k1Flag

  25. Fallenlords

    The performance of Heath Ledger was reasonable, but to me it was pretty one dimensional. I actually liked Jack Nicholson as The Joker, I thought he combined the various facets of being a homicidal maniac with that of a 'joker' quite well. If that film had been a little more serious it would have been a lot more interesting. I am a fan of Heath Ledger I think he was very good actor, but I also think his death has perhaps clouded people's judgment on his performance. He is dark, diabolical, but where is the fun of The Joker? Even if there had been dark humor, I could of appreciated that. But to me he just wasn't much of a Joker, just a maniac with a painted face. Where was the joke? What was even remotely funny? Is the joke that The Joker isn't at all amusing. Why is he called The Joker, because he wears makeup. I thought the whole point of The Joker, was he played tricks, he played jokes. He has a diabolically twisted mind but with a sense of humor. What next a Riddler that doesn't riddle?

    All of the acting performances where pretty mediocre to my mind, though Heath was better than most. Personally I don't think any of them got much of a chance to put in a great performance, considering everything that was going on. But then that is what you tend to find in action films, rarely do actors win Oscar's for these types of films. Because the films are centered around action and not so much character based. Personally I don't agree with that, but it tends to be the way things are overall. I still don't think the acting performance in this film were even on a par with Hellboy The Golden Army, Ron Perlman was great again as Hellboy. Luke Goss was good as Prince Nuada, class actors like John Hurt popped up. The whole cast to my mind fitted together nicely. The Dark Knight, I didn't get that feeling. Garry Oldman I thought just looked out of place, Aaron Eckhart when he becomes Two-Face seemed miffed more than angry. He didn't switch to the psychotic in a very convincing form at all for my liking. Again Tommy Lee Jones although his part was quite camp compared to this darker version, I thought he made a better Two-Face. Again the comical nature of that film, compared to this more serious version was all that let it down. Maggie Gyllenhaal playing Rachel Dawes, I felt a little sorry for her. Probably cast because she has a passing resemblance to Katie Holmes. I saw no sparkle, no magic between her and Christian Bale or between her and Aaron Eckhart. She played the part well enough but then stepping into a character like that can be problematic, everybody is immediately meant to forget Katie Holmes played the character in the original film. My thoughts were, she looks like Katie Holmes. I am just glad we won't be seeing her again! To me the cast didn't gel that well as a whole, there were a few out of place parts to my mind.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  26. NickScottGuyer

    dude this movie was great and a SPECTACULAR PERFORMANCE FROM HEATH LEDGERR

    4 years agoby @nickscottguyerFlag

  27. The CryptKeeper

    THANK YOU!!!!!!! I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH WHO THINKS THAT!!

    but i think the acting should get more stars

    4 years agoby @catwomanFlag