The Dark Knight

User Score
8.9

Universal acclaim- based on 4707 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. SteveE.
    Oct 30, 2008
    6
    This movie had about one hour too much plot. They should have cut down on the plot and explored more of a simpler version. It looks like they really tried to make this a quality movie, but, as they say, "less is more". The settings were outstanding, as was Heath Ledger.
  2. SteveL.
    Jul 20, 2008
    6
    Lots of eye candy but a bit underwhellming and a lot over extended. Heath Ledger's performance was the best part of this flick.
  3. MarkB.r
    Aug 7, 2008
    6
    Maybe I'm just superhero'd out. (After a summer that included Iron Man, Hancock, The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II: The Golden Army and this, what non-fanboy WOULDN'T be?) Or maybe, with his brilliant reinvention of the Caped Crusader, Batman Begins, cowriter-director Christopher Nolan, having made the best "supermovie" of all time that didn't feature vocal contributions Maybe I'm just superhero'd out. (After a summer that included Iron Man, Hancock, The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy II: The Golden Army and this, what non-fanboy WOULDN'T be?) Or maybe, with his brilliant reinvention of the Caped Crusader, Batman Begins, cowriter-director Christopher Nolan, having made the best "supermovie" of all time that didn't feature vocal contributions from Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter, set the bar so high that even he couldn't come close to topping it. Not that he doesn't TRY--holy fatigue, Batman, HOW he tries!--there's so much overplotting, so much elaborate intercutting, so much STUFF going on that one feels pummeled and exhausted after 30 minutes, and this goes on for TWO AND A HALF HOURS. Sadly, the chief casualty in all this is Christian Bale, who was so charismatic last year in 3:10 to Yuma and Rescue Dawn, and who made such a striking impression in Nolan's first Batfilm. Afflicted here with a classic case of Keaton's Syndrome, Bale is overshadowed here not only by Heath Ledger (obviously, and more about THAT later) but by Michael Caine as Alfred the butler (effortlessly gliding from father figure in the first film to best friend in this one), Morgan Freeman (though underutilized), Maggie Gyllenhaal (ditto, though spunky and energetic) and, in this movie's best performance, Aaron Eckhart as crimebusting politico Harvey Dent, whose war on Gotham City's criminal element reaps a particularly painful personal toll, and whose Kennedy/ Redfordesque good looks are used to extremely effective advantage. As we already know from Memento and The Prestige, Nolan is fascinated with games (if he's participating in a bridge, poker, man-jongg, Scrabble or D&D tournament, bet your money on him--unless maybe David Fincher's playing too); here the contest of choice is that old 1980s Milton Bradley chestnut A Question of Scruples as The Joker (Ledger) endlessly subjects Gotham, its cops, its citizenry and even its other crooks to various ethical conundrums. But as moral dilemma movies go, I'll take all of 2002's underrated Changing Lanes over 10 minutes of this, and as 2008 comic-book cinema is concerned, I'll opt for the drunken singalong session in Hellboy II over ALL of The Dark Knight, because it demonstrates an abundance of what Nolan, with all his overheated pyrotechnical schematics, totally lacks here: humanity. (And by the way, parents, don't be fooled. This, like 2006's Casino Royale, is an R-rated movie that's been awarded a PG-13. It's reassuring to know that the MPAA is working so tirelessly to protect big studio franchise movies, and hasn't gotten any less corrupt since Jack Valenti died.) As far as the elephant in the room is concerned, Heath Ledger, playing The Joker as a demented hummingbird who crashed into one tree too many, is indeed fascinating to watch, but also notably repellent in the same way as a particularly gory car accident that you drive just a little more slowly past to get a better look at, but you really want to (and really should) turn your head away. I really hope that the air of James Deanish sentimentality with which America is overrating his performance soon passes and that we all realize that Ledger's portrayal of Brokeback Mountain's lonesome cowboy Ennis del Mar (and not this) is this fine actor's true time-capsule performance. 60 minutes of watching Ledger's twitching and makeup-licking and I was nostalgic for Jack Nicholson; 90 and I was sorely missing CESAR ROMERO; at the two-hour mark I was aching to see Mamma Mia!, Swing Vote or ANYTHING not featuring a supercharacter in his longjohns or any equivalent thereof. The worst tragedy involving Ledger's horribly premature demise (besides, of course, the fact that we're denied future great work from him) would be if the buzz that certain indulgences leading to it occurred because Ledger got so intensely "into" his characterization were true, because it's all so unnecessary; as Laurence Olivier famously said to Dustin Hoffman on the set of Marathon Man when Hoffman described the lengths to which he went to achieve his performances: "My dear boy, have you ever considered ACTING?" Expand
  4. SteveF.
    Sep 6, 2008
    6
    I saw The Dark Knight twice because I wanted to be sure that I really felt the way I did about a movie everyone else, including the critics, loved. Hey, maybe it was my mood that first night; otherwise, I would have loved it. Unfortunately, as a Batman aficionado, I left the theater the second time just as unimpressed.
    The question is how to judge this movie - as a serious pop art
    I saw The Dark Knight twice because I wanted to be sure that I really felt the way I did about a movie everyone else, including the critics, loved. Hey, maybe it was my mood that first night; otherwise, I would have loved it. Unfortunately, as a Batman aficionado, I left the theater the second time just as unimpressed.
    The question is how to judge this movie - as a serious pop art film or as a summer blockbuster meant to please the masses. The director, the very talented Christopher Nolan, has placed this film directly in the center of these two differing intents. Or perhaps he meant it to be a hybrid. As a hybrid, it is frustratingly disappointing
    Expand
  5. NikoL
    Jan 3, 2009
    6
    Just a glorified cop thriller with some explosions thrown in. Batman voice was awful and no reason the film to be praised like it's The Godfather of this generation when Batman's voice makes you cringe because it's too forced. I didn't understand the ending, [spoiler]Why did Two Face go after Gordon the way he did? He was the one going to save that ugly fiance that Just a glorified cop thriller with some explosions thrown in. Batman voice was awful and no reason the film to be praised like it's The Godfather of this generation when Batman's voice makes you cringe because it's too forced. I didn't understand the ending, [spoiler]Why did Two Face go after Gordon the way he did? He was the one going to save that ugly fiance that Harvey cared so much for.[/spoiler] And the let's not forget the "feel good" moment of the two ferry's not detonating eachother - too stupid to believe. Watchable for one time, couldn't bare it the second time. Expand
  6. EK
    Jan 4, 2009
    6
    Certainly not worthy of the praise or hype and not as good as its predecessor, which, unlike this film, could be enjoyed by anyone who had little in interest in Batman. I found it troublesome that Gotham's true 'shining knight' - is the smarmy, rather obnoxious Harvey Dent. Gordon and Batman decide to lie to the people of Gotham to protect his reputation, because, Certainly not worthy of the praise or hype and not as good as its predecessor, which, unlike this film, could be enjoyed by anyone who had little in interest in Batman. I found it troublesome that Gotham's true 'shining knight' - is the smarmy, rather obnoxious Harvey Dent. Gordon and Batman decide to lie to the people of Gotham to protect his reputation, because, well..they seem to think they are moronic sheep who would never believe the truth about Dent's demise. Plus points: Nice cinematography, there are some decent action set pieces and Ledger was very good as the Joker, although I felt his Joker seemed to give Batman a little too much respect. Overall, an okay film. Just needed a better story. Expand
  7. RossC
    Sep 11, 2009
    6
    This was very, very bloated. There were some great turns from Oldman, Freeman, Ledger and co. However it tried to shoe horn in too many story lines into overly long movie. This should have been split into at least two movies to give the characters time to breathe. The Batman voice was terrible, everyone in the cinema laughed at it (and I can't blame them). The supposed This was very, very bloated. There were some great turns from Oldman, Freeman, Ledger and co. However it tried to shoe horn in too many story lines into overly long movie. This should have been split into at least two movies to give the characters time to breathe. The Batman voice was terrible, everyone in the cinema laughed at it (and I can't blame them). The supposed 'realism' is a hinderance to Christian Bale in a stupid rubber suit running around guys incapable of acutally pulling a trigger. The plot holes are GLARING in the light of 'realism' whilst a comic book film in a comic book world can escape this. The 'prisoner's dilemma' with the ferries was absolutely farscial at times and was wedged into the story to fill more time. Why did we have to watch the Hong Kong scene, that dragged another 20 minutes on. Surely the Joker and Dent are the interesting parts. Some of the writing was absolutely cringingly bad, most noticably the dialogue "like a leper" *shudder* however the plot devices were good, and the overall arks were solid. Grossly overhyped average super hero film. Expand
  8. MichaelS.
    Jul 15, 2008
    6
    Fun summer movie. Sadly, Christopher Nolan is no Tim Burton, Christian Bale is no Michael Keaton, Hans Zimmer is no Danny Elfman, and Heath Ledger is no Jack Nicholson.
  9. DaveD
    Jul 18, 2008
    6
    This is a dark, depressing movie. It was well done, but I don't think it deserves the props it's getting. The plot is kind of a mess and the bottom line, I didn't enjoy it. I felt worse after the movie than I did before it started.
  10. AndrewP.
    Jul 24, 2008
    6
    Decent film but overly long and predictable. Don't believe the hype.
  11. NormD.
    Jul 27, 2008
    6
    Have any of you seen a movie or read a non comic book in your lives? Even if you haven't, aren't you still sickened by all the superhero superciliousness? Aren't you all embarrassed yet? Is this going to be like disco? A laughable fad to some at the present; a laughable fad to all sometime in the future? Or is this the end of culture?
  12. TylerK.
    Jul 20, 2008
    6
    Aside from Ledger's "Joker" this is a very mediocre Batman. I just don't believe Bale is the right cast, and his gruff and deepened voice is only annoying throughout. Pretty week storyline too: trying to stop mayhem and violence in the city. Burton's '89 Batman was more more deep and layered and interesting.
  13. ChrisP.
    Jul 28, 2008
    6
    Very disappointing after the excellent, moody Batman Begins. That movie built up Bruce Wayne and Batman as a true human being, a tragic, sad but ultimately powerful and obsessive hero, one that had resonance and depth. The Batman in this film was just another superhero, blindly and violently reacting to the Joker and nothing more. His one character moment also was forced and unnecassary Very disappointing after the excellent, moody Batman Begins. That movie built up Bruce Wayne and Batman as a true human being, a tragic, sad but ultimately powerful and obsessive hero, one that had resonance and depth. The Batman in this film was just another superhero, blindly and violently reacting to the Joker and nothing more. His one character moment also was forced and unnecassary (and short). Besides that, every bit of the plot was predictable and cliched, cowing to typical blockbuster formula. Lame, cutesy jokes, too fast pacing that didn't allow and time for thoughtfulness, and a teenagers idea of darkness. Some examples: How is the Joker, a self-professed, "Agent of Chaos" able and willing to set so many elaborate plans and schemes. Hell, how does he even accomplish all he does in the film without help? Certainly not with henchmen, whom he kills indiscriminately. The plot was also incredibly predictable. Other than a certain joke involving a pencil, I was able to see every bit of the plot from miles away. *SPOILERS* Or did anyone really expect Harvey Dent to be killed before he became Two-Face? *END SPOILERS* That's just one example. There's also another plot device that is completely unbelievable and seems to exist solely to trick the audience and nothing else. All in all, a mediocre film. Expand
  14. MattH
    Aug 15, 2008
    6
    I really liked the first Nolan/Bale Batman effort and without being a batman junkie I genuinely looked forward to the Dark Night. Sadly I can't say the experience was all I hoped. A desperately over complicated plot with way too many characters and subplots introduced only to be hurriedly closed off again as the movie descended into cliche and oddly unexciting action sequences. Sure I really liked the first Nolan/Bale Batman effort and without being a batman junkie I genuinely looked forward to the Dark Night. Sadly I can't say the experience was all I hoped. A desperately over complicated plot with way too many characters and subplots introduced only to be hurriedly closed off again as the movie descended into cliche and oddly unexciting action sequences. Sure Ledger was good, but there was not nearly enough of the Joker in this movie, those pesky sub-plots again! As the movie wore on I found myself and the rest of the audience in the theater increasingly restless and hoping vainly for an end to it all. Finally the voice characterisation of batman vs wayne became increasinlyg more and more noticeable and annoying with time. As luck would have it I got home from the theater to see Batman Begins screening on TV. As I sat enjoying it I wept a silent tear for what might have been. Expand
  15. JonW
    Aug 18, 2008
    6
    I went into this movie with high expectations due to the great reviews. Unfortunately, I found the movie to be way too dark and not fun at all. I thoroughly enjoyed Batman Begins and was hoping for more of the same, but The Dark Knight took out all of the fun that was in the first movie. After two and half hours of sadistic violence I was ready for the movie to be over. Great acting I went into this movie with high expectations due to the great reviews. Unfortunately, I found the movie to be way too dark and not fun at all. I thoroughly enjoyed Batman Begins and was hoping for more of the same, but The Dark Knight took out all of the fun that was in the first movie. After two and half hours of sadistic violence I was ready for the movie to be over. Great acting performances, interesting plot, but way, way, way too dark. I enjoyed Jack Nicholson's Joker more because he was funny! Not Heath Ledger's fault, but this character is just plain insane. Don't be fooled by the PG-13 rating. Kids should not go to this movie. Hopefully they will bring a bit more fun into the next installment, but I'm not holding my breath. Expand
  16. JohnN
    Aug 6, 2008
    6
    They made this movie too long and more complicated than it needed to be.
  17. TomB.
    Nov 1, 2008
    6
    How could it possibly be that all of those people and critics ignore or accept the ridiculousness of this movie with its impossible moments and aspects and a serious young guy dressed as a bat?
  18. ChadS.
    Jul 19, 2008
    6
    The Dark Knight was entirely over hyped and did not live up to my expectations, which were high, but not too high. Overall, Heath Ledger did a good job as the joker, but i wouldn't give him an academy award, which they probably will simply because he died. Christian Bale still seems like an awkward fit for Batman to me, but doesn't ruin the movie in any way at all. The main The Dark Knight was entirely over hyped and did not live up to my expectations, which were high, but not too high. Overall, Heath Ledger did a good job as the joker, but i wouldn't give him an academy award, which they probably will simply because he died. Christian Bale still seems like an awkward fit for Batman to me, but doesn't ruin the movie in any way at all. The main reason in my opinion the Dark Knight wasn't as good as it should've been was because of how implausible everything was and the poor directing. I understand this is a superhero/comic book movie, but it takes a much more realistic/dark/gritty approach. I mean, Batman doesn't have super powers like superman or anything, so they kind of have to be more realistic, but some things in the movie I just sat there shaking my head like "...yeah ok. " The fight scenes with Batman look like they are in slow motion and are not well done or exhilarating at all. This however is not to say Batman was a bad movie, it was still good, just not as good as it should and could have been. Like i stated earlier, the joker is a great villain and he was played well by Ledger. The moral dilemmas are interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed the last part with the 2 boats and Dent (that's not really a spoiler so don't worry). And the fact that Batman refuses to kill was unique and put a good spin to everything. Also, the love triangle between Gyllenhall (sp?), Bale, and Dent, since i don't know the actor who played him, spiced things up a bit, and the movie was still enjoyable. With everything being said, Batman was not like the recent Indiana Jones, which was atrocious, but at the same time it's not the best summer blockbuster I've ever seen. It's still undoubtedly worth going to see, not like you weren't going to though, but if you aren't interested in the movie and were looking for a reason to go, i assure you that this unbiased opinion is telling you that the Dark Knight won't change your mind and make you like Batman. So, there you have it, my final verdict on the Dark Knight is, on a scale of 1-10, 5 being average, a 6.5/10. Expand
  19. MaxP.
    Jul 21, 2008
    6
    I wanted to love this film sooooo much. I loved Batman Begins. I loved Tim Burton's Batman as well. Perhaps it was the hype, perhaps it was just me, but I left feeling a sense of disappointment that took me the whole night to figure out. Without getting into every detail of what I think is wrong (and there is plenty right with the film and worth seeing), I didn't find it the I wanted to love this film sooooo much. I loved Batman Begins. I loved Tim Burton's Batman as well. Perhaps it was the hype, perhaps it was just me, but I left feeling a sense of disappointment that took me the whole night to figure out. Without getting into every detail of what I think is wrong (and there is plenty right with the film and worth seeing), I didn't find it the absolute masterpiece that it's been made out to be. If I went in with low expectations, who knows, I may have felt something else. Expand
  20. JaysonM.
    Jul 22, 2008
    6
    Good movie, but not great. Sure the action's great, but it better be. Not enough character development, occasional Lucas dialogue (i.e. people the boat). Too many characters, too little time to really care about them. Bale channels Pantera with his grumbling Batman voice. Ledger stands far among he rest, but then again he has the most screen time next to Bale and is a well developed Good movie, but not great. Sure the action's great, but it better be. Not enough character development, occasional Lucas dialogue (i.e. people the boat). Too many characters, too little time to really care about them. Bale channels Pantera with his grumbling Batman voice. Ledger stands far among he rest, but then again he has the most screen time next to Bale and is a well developed character. Not Nolan's best work, would have like to seen something more challenging and not spoon fed. The film would have been better to introduce Dent and continue his story in the next film. Not bad, not great. Expand
  21. RogB
    Jul 27, 2008
    6
    1st half of movie was great - 2nd half was tedious and without focus.
  22. KelaM.
    Jul 29, 2008
    6
    I didn't think Heath Ledger was particularly good even though he was making a big effort at it.Too bad the director decided to give him more screen time than Christian Bale who's a far better actor.
  23. David
    Jul 29, 2008
    6
    Wow! I can't believe how overblown the hype is on this movie. Don't get me wrong, i liked it. But i sure as hell didn't love it. I thought this movie was called the Dark Knight. It should have been called the Dark Joker! Was Batman even in this movie? There was zero satisfaction at the end. Batman kills off one baddy (two faced) but doesn't kill off the one i really Wow! I can't believe how overblown the hype is on this movie. Don't get me wrong, i liked it. But i sure as hell didn't love it. I thought this movie was called the Dark Knight. It should have been called the Dark Joker! Was Batman even in this movie? There was zero satisfaction at the end. Batman kills off one baddy (two faced) but doesn't kill off the one i really wanted dead (the Joker). The one that was the biggest terrorist this side of Osama bin laden! I was so sick of that guy by the end of the movie. Like some people said before me, how in the hell did half the things happen in the movie? It seemed like the Joker was this all mighty magician going around and blowing up one place after another. And Batman was always one step behind! Give me a break!! How in the hell did he get out of Jail? So every cop died in that explosion except for the Joker?! sigh! So many frustrating parts. By the end of it, i was so freaking tired. And can we please stop with the Heath Ledger love fest?! Personally i didn't think his performance was all that great. It was average. Expand
  24. DanE.
    Aug 13, 2008
    6
    This movie was a 6 maybe a 7 for me. Not great but not bad. Definitely over rated.
  25. NatalieO.
    Sep 4, 2008
    6
    Besides Heath Ledger's performance, I can think of little that I liked about this film. So incredibly boring and far, far too long.
  26. JayH.
    Nov 26, 2008
    6
    It's certainly well produced, outstanding special effects. Two excellent performances, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger. Michael Caine is good as well. But it's overlong, overrated and overdone. It never "wowed" me.
  27. TanabeA.
    Jul 17, 2008
    6
    Bored me to death. Pretentious and humorless. Batman's irritatingly raspy voice and his stiff costume efficiently erased the whatever nuances Christian Bale wanted to convey. Heath Ledger was good but I wouldn't go so far as to give him an Oscar nomination in this. Better that people should give much more notice to Gary Oldman who imbued his character with a quiet strength I Bored me to death. Pretentious and humorless. Batman's irritatingly raspy voice and his stiff costume efficiently erased the whatever nuances Christian Bale wanted to convey. Heath Ledger was good but I wouldn't go so far as to give him an Oscar nomination in this. Better that people should give much more notice to Gary Oldman who imbued his character with a quiet strength I found totally captivating and believable. The plot was predictable in many parts and hardly original. This movie takes itself way too seriously. What we have here is a tempest in a teacup. Greatest comicbook movie ever made? Hahahahaha! Expand
  28. ChristopherJ.
    Jul 24, 2008
    6
    Let's do the math: how did I add up to 6 points? I'm giving the movie 5 points for the Heath Ledgers acting, alone. I'll give 1 point for Bale, Gyllenhaal, Oldman, and Caine each. Minus one point for the script going back to "comic-booky" after the significant departure therefrom in the first movie. Where did the Joker get all his power? I found it difficult to believe that Let's do the math: how did I add up to 6 points? I'm giving the movie 5 points for the Heath Ledgers acting, alone. I'll give 1 point for Bale, Gyllenhaal, Oldman, and Caine each. Minus one point for the script going back to "comic-booky" after the significant departure therefrom in the first movie. Where did the Joker get all his power? I found it difficult to believe that he could maintain power to garner his apparent influence and lack of vulnerability. His character was written without the dimensions that Bruce Wayne had in Batman Begins. And why did they use CG on Two Face? It was simply distracting: minus one point for that. And I didn't like the lines for Eckhart's Harvey Dent: minus one. Otherwise the movie had a good amount of darkness and intensity, which I enjoyed. But it also seemed both a bit repetitive (violence against look-a-like Batman's and Joker giving speeches) and was kind of hard to follow (like when Batman was using his cell-phone-sonar vision). That vision gimmick seemed like a pointless reach, too. Expand
  29. MaxB.
    Jul 26, 2008
    6
    Dark Knight was good, but not, in my opinion, epic and revolutionary as many critics believe. I expect their lofty opinion of the film has something to do with Ledger's death - he really has been showered with undue praise - his performance was nothing out of the ordinary if you ask me. Also, it was so consistently depressing. Nothing good ever happened. It was just bad after bad Dark Knight was good, but not, in my opinion, epic and revolutionary as many critics believe. I expect their lofty opinion of the film has something to do with Ledger's death - he really has been showered with undue praise - his performance was nothing out of the ordinary if you ask me. Also, it was so consistently depressing. Nothing good ever happened. It was just bad after bad after bad. Joker blows something up, Batman shouts a little, Joker blows something else up, etc etc. Makes for a very depressing film. What is it with superhero films and doing what I like to call "a Spiderman"? By that I mean, they're no longer what they should be - force of unquestionable good (Batman) faces off against force of unquestionable evil and chaos (Joker). Now it's all "Oh, Batman and the Joker aren't that different really" and "Batman's kind of a villain, if you look at it this way..." No he damn well isn't. Sorry, but that plot has been beaten to death by the three Spiderman films already. Also, God it went on for about half an hour longer than it needed to. And another thing, how did the Joker sneak all that explosive into a working hospital? I know security in those places is light, but geez, you'd think they'd notice some guy dressed in makeup and a purple suit sneaking oil drums and plastic explosives into a hospital. And talk about short notice - he must have done that in a few hours. I know I'm being picky but eh... It was good, it just doesn't deserve all this universal praise it's getting. Expand
  30. VM.
    Jul 27, 2008
    6
    Yes, overhyped, I liked the first one much better. This one was more complicated and exhausting... I looked at my watch 2 hours in, this movie was long. And Christian Bale's bat-voice, annoying. It was a good movie, but trying to be too Dark, even slow at times. Heath Ledger deserves and will get the Oscar, absolutely unbelievable! They could've made a sequel 'The Yes, overhyped, I liked the first one much better. This one was more complicated and exhausting... I looked at my watch 2 hours in, this movie was long. And Christian Bale's bat-voice, annoying. It was a good movie, but trying to be too Dark, even slow at times. Heath Ledger deserves and will get the Oscar, absolutely unbelievable! They could've made a sequel 'The Joker' without Batman and people would have FLOCKED to it, but... Expand
  31. MattC.
    Aug 21, 2008
    6
    The movie was decent. I didn't really have expectations or was counting on the critics' reviews. I never agree with anyone. Anyway, i don't see all the fuss about the movie. I didn't have problem with it being long, but i didn't see anything scary or chilling about the movie, including The Joker. I liked his acting though; his movement, expressions & voice. The The movie was decent. I didn't really have expectations or was counting on the critics' reviews. I never agree with anyone. Anyway, i don't see all the fuss about the movie. I didn't have problem with it being long, but i didn't see anything scary or chilling about the movie, including The Joker. I liked his acting though; his movement, expressions & voice. The first Batman was way better. I started to get annoyed after an hour because of the sudden scene switching. Too cocky for me. Only scary to little kids or people who have never EVER seen a film before. The only part i thought was Batman-esque was when the Joker was thrown off the building. I started to think "At least that had a comic book feel to it." But when he was saved, eh... Point is, I'd rather watch something that was actually true to the creation, not switching things up and making the plot speed up to fast. For those who know what i mean Expand
  32. SiR.
    Jan 25, 2009
    6
    First things first, Ledger's performance is great, but not so superb and world changing as the gushing praise would lead you to believe. Not factoring Ledger's death, the performance is great. The film however - not so great - being yet another soulless blockbuster disappointment. A big shiny mess of a movie. Gotham city appears so pristine and un-gothic that it may as well be First things first, Ledger's performance is great, but not so superb and world changing as the gushing praise would lead you to believe. Not factoring Ledger's death, the performance is great. The film however - not so great - being yet another soulless blockbuster disappointment. A big shiny mess of a movie. Gotham city appears so pristine and un-gothic that it may as well be set in Singapore. The mumbling, uninspiring city officials panicky instant reaction to each of the Joker's deadly plans (which ALWAYS includes something or someone being blown up) show little leadership or though. Perhaps the crime problem in Gotham City could be more easily solved by a simple re-election? As the story moves along in the usual blockbuster way we reach the ending sequence - a sequence so poorly edited and scattered it is hard to not drift off thinking about other things. Then there is Batman, whose mask seems too tight for his face causing him to speak in a ridiculously loud, nasally lisping way. This movie is as confused and schizophrenic as the Joker. Is this a Batman movie or is this a Joker movie? I don't know but the DVD cover I hold in my hand has NO reference to the character Batman apart from a small, obligatory bat symbol in the movies title - otherwise it's all about Ledger. I remember being truly surprised and taken with the "darkness" of Batman Begins. Where that film was an eerie study of Bruce Wayne's psychological childhood trauma, The Dark Knight is more a study of Bruce Wayne (as he puts it) unneeded and ready to retire. Maybe he is onto something? Expand
  33. David
    Dec 15, 2008
    6
    A halfway decent superhero flick that takes itself way too seriously, wanting to be the next Heat but failing. Horrendously edited, with an overstuffed plot and misused actors. Ledger steals the show; without him it would be plain unremarkable. So, not really a bad film, but not at all a great one, and completely undeserving of the ridiculously high praise being given to it.
  34. EricM
    Dec 31, 2008
    6
    The city of Gatham is under attack for 2 1/2 hours. Though Heath Ledger is wonderful as a sadistic, clever Joker, the movie runs long, humor is absent, and the solomn tone is relentless. The director favors shooting much of the film in muted colors of gray and indigo and emphasizes dark shots. Well acted, but after 152 minutes I was ready for a dose of whatever Heath Ledger took to ease The city of Gatham is under attack for 2 1/2 hours. Though Heath Ledger is wonderful as a sadistic, clever Joker, the movie runs long, humor is absent, and the solomn tone is relentless. The director favors shooting much of the film in muted colors of gray and indigo and emphasizes dark shots. Well acted, but after 152 minutes I was ready for a dose of whatever Heath Ledger took to ease the pain. I rate a 6 for pretty good action and acting--but the film has its drawbacks. Expand
  35. May 9, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is not a bad movie per-say.Its a gritty,realistic super hero movie,that happens to be a batman movie.On paper,it sounds like it was all going to be excellent,especially after the outstanding Batman Begins.The trouble is,there is ALOT wrong with this movie! Too many things to cover in a short review,so i'll get started.Firstly,where was the rousing music score that got our hairs standing up in Batman begins? There was no music at all in the car chase/batmobile sequence,& what music there was,was no where near as memorable as the previous film.. Racheal.What a completely poor choice of acresss they opted for to play her in this movie! She's not attractive at all,had the personality of a cardboard box,& where was the chemistry that her & Bruce had in the previous film?! I dont think anyone was bothered when she died.Instead of a re-built batcave & bruce mansion,we had some generic 'Big Room',What? Morgan Freeman & Michael Caine were not given any opportunity to shine in this movie,unlike Begins.Batmans suit looked too much like conventional armour,instead of something natural,with the neck looking particulally ridiculous,& the voice as Batman was so over the top,it was totally distracting.. The Joker just looked too greasy & dirty,& sounded like some science nerd,& whats with all the different versions of his origin & the licking of the lips like a lizard? Both seemed unnes
    sassary.& the plot just seemed like a mess,that was hard work to take in,with too much going on,& was jumping all over the place.. I have to say though,that Harvey Dent/Two Face was played very well.He's a great actor. Despite everything i've said,when i watched the movie again at home,for some reason,the film seemed more watchable.Maybe because the plot is easier to take in the second time around,but i enjoyed it more than at the cinema,though the critisisms still stand,especially the ones about Rachael.I hope the mood,drama,storytelling & music score are improved in Batman Rises,& Bale tones it down a bit with that voice,& it should be ok.
    Expand
  36. Feb 1, 2012
    6
    Usually I'm one to be pretty positive about most movies, and it is rare for me to be a dissenting negative critic. Also, there are many extremely violent or disturbing movies which I have found excellent (from thrillers to horror movies to crime fiction, etc.) But here is that rare example where I disagree with predominantly positive reviews: I found this movie just dragged on, with moreUsually I'm one to be pretty positive about most movies, and it is rare for me to be a dissenting negative critic. Also, there are many extremely violent or disturbing movies which I have found excellent (from thrillers to horror movies to crime fiction, etc.) But here is that rare example where I disagree with predominantly positive reviews: I found this movie just dragged on, with more and more dark, disturbing, violent imagery which really spoiled my evening instead of leaving me inspired, energized, entertained, or moved. I could barely make it through. Certainly there were fine performances, but why not watch something that makes your day better, instead of this? Expand
  37. Dec 7, 2012
    6
    Good movie but it is too slow.
  38. PaulT
    Oct 1, 2008
    5
    I have to agree with Karen. For me the best scenes were those that involved dialog. Movie strated very well, but just seemed to get more and more silly. Silly to the point where the story was not relevent anymore. A major disapointment as far as I was concerned
  39. JM
    Jul 20, 2008
    5
    Way overrated. The movie is too long, the fight/actions scenes edited too much like an MTV video, and the movie is way too in love with violence. This movie should NOT be PG-13. It warrants a "R" rating. In addition, while Maggie Gyllenhaal , provided a fine performance she is no leading lady. As much as I love Batman and as much as I appreciated Heath Ledger's great performance, I Way overrated. The movie is too long, the fight/actions scenes edited too much like an MTV video, and the movie is way too in love with violence. This movie should NOT be PG-13. It warrants a "R" rating. In addition, while Maggie Gyllenhaal , provided a fine performance she is no leading lady. As much as I love Batman and as much as I appreciated Heath Ledger's great performance, I cannot recommend this movie. Expand
  40. Daniel
    Jul 20, 2008
    5
    The special effects and action sequences are great, but the plot is confused and ultimately the movie goes at least 30 minutes too long than it should. Not a patch on "Batman Begins."
  41. JoshC.
    Nov 9, 2008
    5
    A sadly average movie that is grossly overrated. While many performances are great (despite the much talked about performance of Heath Ledger, Freeman, Caine, and Oldman give equally good performances) and some truly breathtaking moments (a bound to be much repeated opening shot that slowly zooms in over the skyline), the movie is killed by it's length, overly-convoluted plot and A sadly average movie that is grossly overrated. While many performances are great (despite the much talked about performance of Heath Ledger, Freeman, Caine, and Oldman give equally good performances) and some truly breathtaking moments (a bound to be much repeated opening shot that slowly zooms in over the skyline), the movie is killed by it's length, overly-convoluted plot and lack of any real character development. More depressing still are the flat performances of Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal, all of whom are too stiff and bland to really care about. A number of smaller problems (a stupidly overdone batsuit, a two-face subplot that doesn't go anywhere, and Bruce Wayne coming off as far too whiny) all bring down the film. Which is a true shame as the movie shows real potential in a lot of areas. However, the film starts strong and ends up going nowhere for far too long. Expand
  42. MeganB.
    Jul 19, 2008
    5
    I wanted to love this movie. It had some very good performances, and I loved the cinematography. That said, this movie has way too many inexplicable jumps in it; there are multiple scenes that end with a cut to another scene without any segue or explanation, and often what could have been the best part of a scene was left out altogether. Also, the whole movie just builds and builds and I wanted to love this movie. It had some very good performances, and I loved the cinematography. That said, this movie has way too many inexplicable jumps in it; there are multiple scenes that end with a cut to another scene without any segue or explanation, and often what could have been the best part of a scene was left out altogether. Also, the whole movie just builds and builds and builds and it has 3 separate endings. And finally: PG-13?!?!? On what planet should a 13 year old see something that is that violent and graphic? Expand
  43. S.X.
    Jul 23, 2008
    5
    I found the endless obsession with dark-this and dark-that, to be a depressing one-note that hung around from beginning to end. The moral complications were contrived and pretentious. A number of liberties were taken with the logic of the action. What I found most odd is that 'the batman' seemed out of place in his own movie, as if some dude in a cape kept popping in and out of I found the endless obsession with dark-this and dark-that, to be a depressing one-note that hung around from beginning to end. The moral complications were contrived and pretentious. A number of liberties were taken with the logic of the action. What I found most odd is that 'the batman' seemed out of place in his own movie, as if some dude in a cape kept popping in and out of a more serious, real-world crime drama. Expand
  44. BillyC.
    Jul 29, 2008
    5
    It started well but after 2 hours Nolan should have wrapped it up! Two Face became a really childish bore and ridiculous with his coin tossing (Anton Chigurrh anyone?) nonsense. The dialogue was a bit cheesy. Far fetched.
  45. MarkL.
    Aug 1, 2008
    5
    No thanks, this movie was way to long and could have been shortened an hour easy and Heath L. put on a good performance but after two hours of watching him lick his lips I was rather annoyed by his performance and what is up with the child molester voice of the Batman "come here little girl I have some candy for you",lol. I don't think this movie would have made that big of a splash No thanks, this movie was way to long and could have been shortened an hour easy and Heath L. put on a good performance but after two hours of watching him lick his lips I was rather annoyed by his performance and what is up with the child molester voice of the Batman "come here little girl I have some candy for you",lol. I don't think this movie would have made that big of a splash if Heath wouldn't have passed away because it's all been done a hundred times. Nothing new here............ Expand
  46. JakeA.
    Mar 6, 2009
    5
    The only truly amazing thing about this movie was Heath Ledger's performance. Otherwise, it was awful. Christian Bale was absolutely horrible, just, bad. The story simply drags on and on without really going anywhere. It's really too bad that Ledger's best performance had to be in an otherwise bad film.
  47. PacoS.
    Dec 10, 2008
    5
    The first movie was so good I found this story to be lame contrived, I feel too much credit is given to Heath for his portrayal of the Joker, couple of great moments, and a few cool weapons or gizmos other then that lame. I feel they should have created a new story around a villain that hadn't been used before, hard to beat Jack's version of Joker.
  48. LittleJoe
    Dec 31, 2008
    5
    I wanted to like this movie because of its high scores both by critics and users, but I found it to be very confusing and extremely hard to follow. The effects were spectacular, the acting nicely done, but the plot was a complete mishmash.
  49. Nathan
    Jul 19, 2008
    5
    This movie is a jumbled mess. Nolan tries to do too much without making clear sense of things. There is little to no character development while the plot hurdles onward, multiplying into several different (incoherent) story lines. The result is a confusing series of events flashed on screen with no meaning behind it. I could identify the events and the characters performing them, but I This movie is a jumbled mess. Nolan tries to do too much without making clear sense of things. There is little to no character development while the plot hurdles onward, multiplying into several different (incoherent) story lines. The result is a confusing series of events flashed on screen with no meaning behind it. I could identify the events and the characters performing them, but I did not know why. . .nor did I care. The ONLY saving grace is the Joker. Expand
  50. AnonymousMC
    Jul 24, 2008
    5
    Heath Ledger and the shots of the city are great. Everything else was pointless and incoherent. To many bombs and explosions. The movie can be compared to "the Wanted" in this way, I guess with its exaggeration of action and the only good thing being the supporting actor (Ledger in "Dark Knight"; Jolie in "the Wanted"). The martial arts would've been cool if you could see it (itsHeath Ledger and the shots of the city are great. Everything else was pointless and incoherent. To many bombs and explosions. The movie can be compared to "the Wanted" in this way, I guess with its exaggeration of action and the only good thing being the supporting actor (Ledger in "Dark Knight"; Jolie in "the Wanted"). The martial arts would've been cool if you could see it (its shortened, zoomed in and the dark). Every scene is meaningless, and some could've had meaning if they weren't truncated. I guess Nolan wasn't trying to do that he just wants to make sure you walk away overwhelmed with nothing but wow there were so many explosions and Heath Ledger's Joker is scary. But, so what. Expand
  51. Rangeboy
    Jul 25, 2008
    5
    Saw preview in UK last night after reading all the hype surrounding it. Preferred Batman Begins, it seemed like a TV cop show in placess, not enought of the Scarecrow, did he like die or just disappear? Ledger's Joker is no way as good as Jack's in the Tim Burton film and is it just me or does he act and sound exactlly like Herman Munster? A big underachievement, far fetched, Saw preview in UK last night after reading all the hype surrounding it. Preferred Batman Begins, it seemed like a TV cop show in placess, not enought of the Scarecrow, did he like die or just disappear? Ledger's Joker is no way as good as Jack's in the Tim Burton film and is it just me or does he act and sound exactlly like Herman Munster? A big underachievement, far fetched, confusing, boring, Bale's embaressing Batman 'voice' , I could go on... Expand
  52. MartinW.
    Sep 1, 2008
    5
    Not anywhere near as great as it's reputatin suggests. I can't buy into the downward spiral of the supposed white knight Harvery Dent, to the point where he's willing to execute innocent children just days after being the moralistic leader of Gotham, and for no reason. He could have killed the Joker for retribution for his disfigurement and supposed killing of Rachel Dawes, Not anywhere near as great as it's reputatin suggests. I can't buy into the downward spiral of the supposed white knight Harvery Dent, to the point where he's willing to execute innocent children just days after being the moralistic leader of Gotham, and for no reason. He could have killed the Joker for retribution for his disfigurement and supposed killing of Rachel Dawes, but no, he'd rather flip coins and potentially kill Gordon's kids? Whatever! Christian Bale is very good as Batman as usual, but his BM voice is way over the top. Maggie G. is very matronly looking as Rachel Dawes. Come on! Ledger is iconic as the Joker, but he's the best thing in this overlong, overrated flick. Expand
  53. LinL
    Jan 4, 2009
    5
    Some swell special effects . . . but I wonder, do you have to be a comic book aficionado to buy into the whole "superhero as tortured neurotic incompetent" bit? I thought "Iron Man" was a lot more satisfying.
  54. MatthewM.
    Oct 18, 2008
    5
    This movie was lame. Too long, too many anti-climactic action scense, fight choreography sucked, Maggie G was insufferable, Robert Downy Jr would have made a better bruce wayne than Bale, way too many stupid plot twists. Nolan tried way too hard, and apart from Ledger, the rest of the actors weren't believable. Heath's performance was the only shining aspect of this film. I This movie was lame. Too long, too many anti-climactic action scense, fight choreography sucked, Maggie G was insufferable, Robert Downy Jr would have made a better bruce wayne than Bale, way too many stupid plot twists. Nolan tried way too hard, and apart from Ledger, the rest of the actors weren't believable. Heath's performance was the only shining aspect of this film. I don't think he was better than jack nicholson, but a great interpretation of the joker nonetheless. Lastly, ledger's death without a doubt inflated the success of the film, and if he hadn't died i don't believe it would be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time, or anywhere near it. Overall it was dissapointing, way below my expectations. Expand
  55. ArmondA.
    Dec 18, 2008
    5
    The makers of this film bought themselves a terrific toolbox but they didn't build much of anything. Well actually they made a very big, noisy, philosophically pompous, bore. It runs awfully long, too, as if trying to make up for its lack of satisfying content by giving a second and third helping, as the crash-em-up episodes just keep on coming. Please, no more of this batty-man. The The makers of this film bought themselves a terrific toolbox but they didn't build much of anything. Well actually they made a very big, noisy, philosophically pompous, bore. It runs awfully long, too, as if trying to make up for its lack of satisfying content by giving a second and third helping, as the crash-em-up episodes just keep on coming. Please, no more of this batty-man. The myth has been over-explored and wrung out. Maybe it's time for an updated version of the campy interpretation many of us howled at 40 years ago. Expand
  56. Robyn
    Jul 19, 2008
    5
    All these 10s crack me up. a movie has to be MORE THAN VISUAL and HYPE. i still don't understand the plot of the movie. too many holes, it made no sense, at times simply preposterous. Hellboy is a fantasy movie, so certain grace is given. Batman is supposed to be a "real" movie, and yet you still have the cliches and dumb moments that ruin such movies. every single thing goes wrong All these 10s crack me up. a movie has to be MORE THAN VISUAL and HYPE. i still don't understand the plot of the movie. too many holes, it made no sense, at times simply preposterous. Hellboy is a fantasy movie, so certain grace is given. Batman is supposed to be a "real" movie, and yet you still have the cliches and dumb moments that ruin such movies. every single thing goes wrong for the bumbling cops, and every single thing goes right for the Joker and his crew. so many tidy coincidences, one after the other, such perfect, absurd, timing. the movie was LOOOOONG, way too long, and aggravating to watch. it takes itself way to seriously. it was ok, far from great, no need to ever see it again. Expand
  57. RonG.
    Jul 19, 2008
    5
    The critics must have been paid for these over-the-top glowing reviews. The movie is mediocre, at best. There are many problems with the film, beginning with a disjointed storyline, and weak editing. It all makes for a bit of a jumbled mess, where we have difficulty recognizing the good characters from the bad ones. Even the good characters gone bad occur rather suddenly, with no rhyme or The critics must have been paid for these over-the-top glowing reviews. The movie is mediocre, at best. There are many problems with the film, beginning with a disjointed storyline, and weak editing. It all makes for a bit of a jumbled mess, where we have difficulty recognizing the good characters from the bad ones. Even the good characters gone bad occur rather suddenly, with no rhyme or reason as to their motivations. The sound is a bit muffled throughout, and the decision to give Christian Bale a computerized voice when he's in the Batman suit, makes the dialogue even more incomprehensible. Even at 2-1/2 hours this movie seems like a work in progress. I felt that every other reel in the film was missing, to ensure the film had some level of continuity--but then, this was directed by the guy who gave us Memento--a movie that was all over the place on purpose. I witnessed a movie with good performances, some great acting (especially on Heath Ledger's part), and a great cast. But I feel like it was a bunch of terrific individual scenes that were thrown in the air, and unfortunately, didn't add up to a cohesive movie when they were assembled. This is a movie that is going to do terrific box office it's first week, due to all the hype, but then is going to tank in the second week. The "repeat" factor just isn't there for this film. And I hate to quibble, because I love Maggie Gylenhaal, but she was miscast in this film as a "sexy" love interest. I'm not a Katie Holmes fan, but Katie is much more "sexy" than Maggie. Her role in the triangle love-affair just didn't work for me--and, as you'll see, didn't actually work for Batman either. Expand
  58. GregB
    Aug 14, 2008
    5
    As good as the first movie was, this as bad. Did not know what it wanted to be - Comic book movie, bleak dark fiction, or epic. It had a hodge podge of scences strung together to make a marginal sequel. Hollywood has fallen in love with not just dark but bleak and life sucking. If you like Scarface you will like Dark Knight.
  59. MarkW
    Aug 14, 2008
    5
    40 minutes of dry content could have easily been cut from this movie to make it at least bearable. The director must be an idiot....Batman can do so many things, but cant stop someone 2 feet away from getting their face burned half off? The special effects sucked ass...nothing we haven't seen in the last 10 years.
  60. JamesS.
    Aug 14, 2008
    5
    Way too much stuff going on. Too long, too much dialogue, and too many things blowing up only make this movie one mind-numbing experience. I thought Batman Begins was miles ahead of this movie and the best Batman movie ever made. I was pretty disappointed to say the least. Obviously, Heath Ledger was great as the Joker. Christian Bale's Batman voice was a bit over-the-top and a bit Way too much stuff going on. Too long, too much dialogue, and too many things blowing up only make this movie one mind-numbing experience. I thought Batman Begins was miles ahead of this movie and the best Batman movie ever made. I was pretty disappointed to say the least. Obviously, Heath Ledger was great as the Joker. Christian Bale's Batman voice was a bit over-the-top and a bit annoying with his lisp. I just didn't like the fact that the Joker was everywhere at once and had everything planned out so perfectly every time--with seemingly everyone being corrupt and working for the Joker, unwittingly or not. Expand
  61. KarenW.
    Sep 14, 2008
    5
    Gotta go against the grain here. Great performances, including one that should get Heath Ledger nominated for a posthumous Oscar, but in the end, you have to ask what was the point? I initially thought they had to reconstruct and reedit after Ledger's death because that's the way the plot came out: jumbled and disjointed. It seemed to come close to making a point a few times, Gotta go against the grain here. Great performances, including one that should get Heath Ledger nominated for a posthumous Oscar, but in the end, you have to ask what was the point? I initially thought they had to reconstruct and reedit after Ledger's death because that's the way the plot came out: jumbled and disjointed. It seemed to come close to making a point a few times, then just skittered away from it. OK, yes, it was striving to be something more than a superhero story, but it fell so far short of Batman Begins that it devolved into a paean to violence; in that flick, violence served to advance the plot while here it seemed to be inserted (liberally) for its own sake. While it was bloodless, you understood that the Joker was doing a fair amount of slashing off-screen, and there seemed no point in showing a fabricated genesis of Two-face when he lasts about 20 on-screen minutes before going the way of all flesh. My stomach is still in knots the way it was after, say, Aliens, but this was less of a roller-coaster ride and more of a cheap carnival funhouse trip. My one thought is that perhaps, like Peter Jackson's version of The Two Towers, it will all make a lot more sense once the DVD comes out if it has 40 minutes of deleted footage, but the film left me with such a bad taste in my mouth from the abysmal plotting and excessive violence that it's not something I plan to go out of my way to find out. Expand
  62. PriM
    Jan 12, 2009
    5
    Overlong, disjointed, with a convoluted plot and a good helping of silliness and hype. Completely devoid of any charm, unlike Burton's Batman, or even Nolan's previous effort. No likable characters, apart from Oldman's perhaps. Bale now seems bored of the role. Freeman is still doing his 'Q' bit and I'm still getting used to Michael '..blow the the Overlong, disjointed, with a convoluted plot and a good helping of silliness and hype. Completely devoid of any charm, unlike Burton's Batman, or even Nolan's previous effort. No likable characters, apart from Oldman's perhaps. Bale now seems bored of the role. Freeman is still doing his 'Q' bit and I'm still getting used to Michael '..blow the the bloody doors off' Caine playing Alfred. Granted, Heath did very well. Batman and the Joker, due to their own reasons, pose no real threat to each other. Dent's U-turn from good to bad was laughable and the movie ends with a muddled moralistic pompous message that fails to truly uplift. TDK might still be riding on the crest of a wave of popularity and hype ( due mainly to one guys performance and untimely death) but I have a feeling the years will not be kind to this movie. Expand
  63. Aug 21, 2010
    5
    i didnt get the hype behind this film . i know alot of people who liked it but i guess im not one of them . im almost wondering if it was because it was heath ledgers last preformance befor he died . well i guess for one im not a huge batman fan to begin with . well lets move on the critics where right though on heath ledger giving a great preformance as the joker i thought it would bei didnt get the hype behind this film . i know alot of people who liked it but i guess im not one of them . im almost wondering if it was because it was heath ledgers last preformance befor he died . well i guess for one im not a huge batman fan to begin with . well lets move on the critics where right though on heath ledger giving a great preformance as the joker i thought it would be really tough to top jack nicholsons version of the joker but he did a great job . im not saying that eather cause he kicked off he did actaully do it well. thats about really the only plus of the film that and the over all plot of how evil people can just light the world on fire and wach it burn and not care about any thing els wasnt bad eather . the main problems i have with this film are baal himself as batman . should i be laughing every time he talks as batman? well i am his low sounding raspy voice for batman just seems over the top and rediculas . i just kept laughing every time he opend his mouth . the film is also way to long like 2 hrs 45 min or some thing like that . it could have been easily cut to just under 2 hours. bringing in 2 face at the end i thought was just pointless for such a small roll and then end it the way they did . this film really wasnt bad but not nearly enjoyable enough for me to ever want to see it ever again or its sequels. Expand
  64. Oct 14, 2012
    5
    This is a very over-rated film, slightly boring, It took me two days to actually get through this snooze-fest, It's a decent film overall but even Heath Ledger's fantastic performance can't save this from just being another film featuring a comic book hero, I enjoy Batman normally the comics are fantastic but this isn't fantastic and you could even miss this film if you were watching TheThis is a very over-rated film, slightly boring, It took me two days to actually get through this snooze-fest, It's a decent film overall but even Heath Ledger's fantastic performance can't save this from just being another film featuring a comic book hero, I enjoy Batman normally the comics are fantastic but this isn't fantastic and you could even miss this film if you were watching The Dark Knight Trilogy. Expand
  65. Mar 6, 2014
    5
    The dark knight pivots around this one premise: there is good and there is bad and there is nothing in between. This black and white morality is embodied in the characters of the insane Joker and the angelic Batman. The one kills with the least provocation, indiscriminately because even his own henchmen and allies are killed in an offhand, often gruesome, way. The other avoids killing inThe dark knight pivots around this one premise: there is good and there is bad and there is nothing in between. This black and white morality is embodied in the characters of the insane Joker and the angelic Batman. The one kills with the least provocation, indiscriminately because even his own henchmen and allies are killed in an offhand, often gruesome, way. The other avoids killing in the most desperate and chaotic of situations and we see him, in his human form as Bruce Wayne, flounder in his dalliance with Rachel. For Bruce is a gentleman and as a gentleman he would not impose himself upon a woman. He is the knight, a dark knight, but a knight non the less.
    Joker exists to tempt Batman into falling from his shining white pedestal for no other reason then to proof that he will, if push came to shove. Thou shalt not kill..unless one has to and then one is damned for all eternity.
    And it is Joker who will do the pushing and shoving, until he gets Batman to do something that is 'wrong'.
    And eventually he will..
    Of course he will...
    It is all hogwash.
    The movie, clamored to be the more realistic of them all, might be what it claims to be, but it is still unrealistic and, to boot, based on an abject morality. There is dark and there is light, and just one wrong deed is enough to turn white into black, because here is nothing in between. Intentions do not matter and it just takes one wrong deed to have people abandon Batman to the wolves, for he is a vigilante that ought to be put in jail, even though the purposefully made inept law enforcement agencies can not deal with the likes of a Joker or, for that matter, any other villain. Unless Batman helps them of course.
    Ironically the movie has no reason to be from the start, for Batman is a vigilante and thus acts outside the law. Case closed, the movie has lost it's macGuffin.
    The whole movie revolves around unrealism. Joker can command hordes of henchmen, who cater to his every whim. Unexplained is why these henchmen serve a psychotic murderer who has no problem in killing them at the blink of an eye. They just do. Unexplained is where Joker gets the means. He just has them, in abundance. Unexplained is how Joker knows things. He just does. The image is not of a man gone insane, but of supernatural being that has come to earth to do evil. Is Joker Satan?
    So in what is it then more realistic?
    Is it the style that has been stripped down to the level that there is no style at all? Where the comics are drawn in stark dark colors, gritty details, unusual angles and unsettling stylistic elements, the movie has abandoned all of it. The cinematography is mediocre. Shots are wasted, like the one that sees a conference with a long table and rows of chairs, but the camera fails to use the obvious opportunity to align the shot along the table, using a focused angle that zooms in on Bruce Wayne sleeping, while the people are talking about him. The camera is used in a 'safe' fashion. Lighting is just done away with. While to comics show a fascinating play of shadows, the movie does not use that at all.
    Is it then realistic in the way people behave?
    Is it in the way that people do not think twice to show no loyalty to Batman at all? Or is it in the way cops fail to spot that their fellow policemen have been replaced by Jokers henchmen? Or is it in the way a mobster engages in a standup open fight and forgets that he has to reload the damn thing? Or is it in the way the crime-bosses let themselves be bullied by Joker?
    Is there then any realism in the story line?
    You mean in the way the omniscient and omnipresent Joker terrorizes Gotham to the point that the citizens are willing to offer up their hero to the mercy of that madman? For that is the whole story and it takes more then two hours to tell something that did not have anything substantial to explore after the first half.
    There are far better movies that examine the themes of good and bad in a more down-to-earth and humane way. Serpico springs to mind, or Taxi Driver or Fort Apache, the Bronx. All of whom score lower then this movie.
    The irony is that Dark Knight is praised for what a Batman movie ought not to be. It ought to be unrealistic, stylish, shot with unusual angles, using stark contrasts, snappy dialogues and allow for Catwoman.
    Catwoman, you say?
    Catwoman?
    Yes... because what is she? Is she black? Is she white? No.. she is shaded grey, the color that this movie has no knowledge of.
    Expand
  66. EstaD.
    Aug 6, 2008
    4
    Although I would give the filmmakers credit for a reasonable story and character development, I think the movie is inappropriate for many people to watch. It depicts a anti-social society and I might say also a mirror of the current American society. We don't need to see all the sweetness from the 50s but in my opinion this movie should be xxx-rated. Harry Potter was banned in many Although I would give the filmmakers credit for a reasonable story and character development, I think the movie is inappropriate for many people to watch. It depicts a anti-social society and I might say also a mirror of the current American society. We don't need to see all the sweetness from the 50s but in my opinion this movie should be xxx-rated. Harry Potter was banned in many conservative bulwarks, but Batman was not. It is time to start a public discussion about the difference between the character of the two stories. Do you really think the Dark Knight/Batman is a children's story? A bank robbery where you kill all your mates?????? No wonder the American society cannot get rid of its violent nature. It will go under just like the Roman Empire due to decadence and (too much expenditure) wars. I am looking forward for that time to happen any time soon. Expand
  67. Darryl
    Jul 20, 2008
    4
    Mediocre at best, if you want a great movie.... see Iron Man, or Wanted.... There has been way too much hype over this movie, and I think a lot has to do with the untimely death of Heath Ledger ..who steals the movie and is a sure Oscar winner with his performance.
  68. AnS.
    Aug 16, 2008
    4
    So what's all the fuss about? An action film so deluded that it thinks it has something deep or relevant to say about the post September 11 climate? No thanks. If only George Bush monitored the mobile phone communications of the film's producers, this awful, self-indulgent mess would have been extraordinarily rendered to some secret prison in Eastern Europe. Showing it to its So what's all the fuss about? An action film so deluded that it thinks it has something deep or relevant to say about the post September 11 climate? No thanks. If only George Bush monitored the mobile phone communications of the film's producers, this awful, self-indulgent mess would have been extraordinarily rendered to some secret prison in Eastern Europe. Showing it to its fellow unlawful combatants would be a torture much worse than waterboarding. Ledger's performance is good but not remarkable. Pacing and action feel disjointed. Given very little exciting happens and all of the dialogue is hot air, it should have been a lot shorter. Expand
  69. ChadSchneider
    Feb 20, 2009
    4
    I thought this movie was over-hyped, over-(and under)acted and just plain long. While the Joker character was well acted by Ledger (Oscar worthy for sure), Christian Bale fell short of making me believe that Batman was more than a mumbling, monotone, disconnected Houdini wanna-be.

    Was not impressed by the Bat-mobile. Was not impressed by the Transformer-like Bat-mobile turned
    I thought this movie was over-hyped, over-(and under)acted and just plain long. While the Joker character was well acted by Ledger (Oscar worthy for sure), Christian Bale fell short of making me believe that Batman was more than a mumbling, monotone, disconnected Houdini wanna-be.

    Was not impressed by the Bat-mobile. Was not impressed by the Transformer-like Bat-mobile turned Bat-cycle. Was not impressed at all. A mostly wasted 3 hours of my life that could have been better spent picking my nose.
    Expand
  70. BillR.
    Jul 20, 2008
    4
    i presume those who keep scoring "10" are teens? such an opportunity gone begging to flesh out the Joker. They could have focused on his childhood, the factors which drove him to the edge and gave Heath a meatier role that could have gone down in history. Instead we had a 150 min movie, brlliantly produced , but lacked characters with emotional depth. Mr Ledger is capable of so much i presume those who keep scoring "10" are teens? such an opportunity gone begging to flesh out the Joker. They could have focused on his childhood, the factors which drove him to the edge and gave Heath a meatier role that could have gone down in history. Instead we had a 150 min movie, brlliantly produced , but lacked characters with emotional depth. Mr Ledger is capable of so much better. Scintillating stuff for the xbox 360 crowd. Expand
  71. PaulB.
    Jul 20, 2008
    4
    Wow.... people were walking out of the cinema i saw this in and it's understandable. The joker is great...but the film is so badly plotted it's amazing. The entire Harvey Dent character should have been edited out as it was not well executed and the story arc round Dent was weakly scripted. we don't believe him... The joker has been used as a cenematic 'device' byWow.... people were walking out of the cinema i saw this in and it's understandable. The joker is great...but the film is so badly plotted it's amazing. The entire Harvey Dent character should have been edited out as it was not well executed and the story arc round Dent was weakly scripted. we don't believe him... The joker has been used as a cenematic 'device' by Nolan. He is a cypher. He turns up as required, in any situation... we never understand how he gets there, how he commandeers a skyscraper, or enters the impenetrable apartment of Batman... The film degenerates in the last 40 mins completely. Once the only character you care for is dead the film just keeps going. I thjought it finished at least three times, only to groan when it started again. Indulgent, flat.. and uninteresting... I think the crtic's reviews are shrouded with the death of ledger and no one wants to admit the films a barker....wooof....the dog of summer. Expand
  72. Fantasy
    Jul 20, 2008
    4
    This was a very tough movie to grade. The bottom line is this is not the cartoon BATMAN. Instead under the guise of the Batman character we have a very dark psychological socialpath slasher movie. How this movie was given a PG 13 rating is beyond me? Any parent considering taking their child to see this thinking they are going to see the old POW BAM ZAP Batman is in for a great surprise. This was a very tough movie to grade. The bottom line is this is not the cartoon BATMAN. Instead under the guise of the Batman character we have a very dark psychological socialpath slasher movie. How this movie was given a PG 13 rating is beyond me? Any parent considering taking their child to see this thinking they are going to see the old POW BAM ZAP Batman is in for a great surprise. Heath Ledger as The JOKER is demented and belongs in a rubber room. Hanibal Lechter should come to mind because that is how disturbed his character is. IF you remember the knife scene from Saving Private Ryan well be prepared to be subjected to two grueling hours of this blood and mayhem. This is a violent sick disturberd movie masquerading under a cartoon character to make all of you go ga ga. P T Barnum once said a sucker is born every minute. Well as I said this is not a cartoon character and 15 minutes into the film you will be sitting on the edge of your seat. The violence is non stop and at one point it becomes overbearing. But when you see children in harms way and the constant disregard for human life with terroristic attacks well that is taking it to the limit. If they had made this movie under a different name with no connection to the cartoon character at least the audience would be prepared for what they are about to see. Heath Ledger is simply brilliant and will definitely win an OSCAR for his portrayal of the manical JOKER. But to say this is BATMAN is totally unfair. DARK is definitely appropriate for the makeup of this film. Not my cup of tea. Do NOT take any children to see this. Expand
  73. JoshC
    Jul 29, 2008
    4
    Good: -Heath Ledger gives brilliant performance, as do Gary Oldman, Michael Cane, and Morgan Freeman -Dark, very dark -Action sequences less garbled (couldn't tell who was winning in the last film) -First half of film Bad: -2 and 1/2 hours long!!!!! -No plot, at all -Christian Bale's deep voice makes it hard to tell what he's saying and makes his performance laughable Good: -Heath Ledger gives brilliant performance, as do Gary Oldman, Michael Cane, and Morgan Freeman -Dark, very dark -Action sequences less garbled (couldn't tell who was winning in the last film) -First half of film Bad: -2 and 1/2 hours long!!!!! -No plot, at all -Christian Bale's deep voice makes it hard to tell what he's saying and makes his performance laughable -Maggie Gyllenhaal cannot save character from being annoying -Mixed dialogue -Dark, very dark -Two-Face not developed enough -The second half of the movie. Expand
  74. VS.D.
    Aug 1, 2008
    4
    What a snoozefest. Though not as bad as its prequel, this film really had nothing interesting enough to require this run time. A poor script was helped along by some decent acting but really the film is nothing special.
  75. dlloyd
    Aug 9, 2008
    4
    Simply weak. Poor script. Good acting but the lack of depth in any single character left their work empty. The joker was crap because he was just a nihilist with nothing else to him and so boring and predictable. The whole film was boring and they couldn't even keep the plot coherent.
  76. JamesLulz
    Oct 9, 2008
    4
    this movie was too long. mightv been better if it was about 1/2 the time. also it takes itself too seriously for a movie based off a comic book and after the first half you begin to wonder why you bother with the movie and its constant undramatic "twists"
  77. HarewV.
    Jul 24, 2008
    4
    Overlong, muddled, and verbose, although the bat-bike is cool. Hardly a worthy follow-up to Begins. Bring back the Scarecrow, I say!
  78. KatherineF.
    Jul 24, 2008
    4
    Long, overstuffed, incoherent, boring, predictable.
  79. MZ
    Jul 25, 2008
    4
    Kept you on the edge of your seat but failed to knock you off it. bad editing and a storyline that flailed all over the room, a dissapointing follow up to Batman Begins
  80. HDM.
    Jul 29, 2008
    4
    Overblown, too many (pointless) subplots, too many 'huh? how did that happen?' moments (Gordon's faked death, for one; the ferries and the hospital explosion, for two more), not enough about Batman and way too much hype about Heath Ledger's performance. So many missed opportunities (Joker to Batman: We're both freaks; spying on every citizen of Gotham).
  81. AronJ.
    Dec 1, 2008
    4
    Cut batman out and youve still got a mediocre story, and movie. Although full of a-listers like ledger, bale, and eckhart, its still unappealing. The acting was great, but, limited, the strongest performences came from eckhart and leger, bale is overrated as an actor.
  82. HarsH.
    Dec 15, 2008
    4
    Quite possibly the most overrated Hollywood film since Titanic. Convoluted and overwrought with dry performances, unnecessary subplots, and derivative action sequences. Ledger gives a compelling performance in what is otherwise a vacuous film. I respect Christopher Nolan, but he needs to ask Jon Favreau how to make a superhero film.
  83. criticalways
    Jul 11, 2008
    4
    Over the top, over-acted, under-written, dated, post modern trash. Sorry to say that Bale has little or nothing to offer that he hasn't already shown, and this is no "psycho" performance. And the missing humor that Jack brilliantly under stated in the 1990 Batman is completely missing from this joke of a Joker. Sorry, heath, you fall flat once again, and pale compared to a truly Over the top, over-acted, under-written, dated, post modern trash. Sorry to say that Bale has little or nothing to offer that he hasn't already shown, and this is no "psycho" performance. And the missing humor that Jack brilliantly under stated in the 1990 Batman is completely missing from this joke of a Joker. Sorry, heath, you fall flat once again, and pale compared to a truly brilliant actor whose shoes you leave well over half empty. Expand
  84. ColinF.
    Jul 19, 2008
    4
    There is an absolute lack of realism, not in relation to the superhero whom is allowed a pass in this aspect, but in the makeup of the plot in relation to the cops and technology of the movie. The scene with the magical cell phone technology that can somehow make any cell phone in Gotham create a ridiculous 3-d video image around it is the epitomy of the stupidity. Joker was faboulous but There is an absolute lack of realism, not in relation to the superhero whom is allowed a pass in this aspect, but in the makeup of the plot in relation to the cops and technology of the movie. The scene with the magical cell phone technology that can somehow make any cell phone in Gotham create a ridiculous 3-d video image around it is the epitomy of the stupidity. Joker was faboulous but not enough to warrant my nine dollars and the hype. Expand
  85. AnonymousMC
    Jul 21, 2008
    4
    The movies started out good but then continued to get boring. There were alot of good parts but the question is will they have a sequal to the movie?
  86. Patrick
    Jul 23, 2008
    4
    The acting was excellent, and it did have some good plot twists. But the action was blurry and the movie was confusing (like Nolan's previous work: Memento) because scenes are placed in a seemingly random order, and the entire thing ends up feeling jumbled up. Characters also seem to disappear from one place to another in a second. First they'll be in a hospital, and next The acting was excellent, and it did have some good plot twists. But the action was blurry and the movie was confusing (like Nolan's previous work: Memento) because scenes are placed in a seemingly random order, and the entire thing ends up feeling jumbled up. Characters also seem to disappear from one place to another in a second. First they'll be in a hospital, and next they're on top of a building. The entire thing is overdone, and most of it feels unessecary. Plus, the film it impossible to sit through since it pretty dull and way overlong. I mean, its like 3 hours long Expand
  87. JimR.
    Jul 25, 2008
    4
    It felt like a tape loop that was boring, repetitive, and would never end. That said, Mr. ledger was wonderful, and it had various ups. It needed HUMOR. Where's Iron Man ?
  88. EdR
    Jul 26, 2008
    4
    Hyped up as the best superhero movie of them all, and it certainly has a good go at that. Christian Bale's Batman/Wayne is once again helped by good cop Gary Oldman, and now by the new DA Harvey Dent, played in a typically smarmy manner by Aaron Eckhart, as he tries to rid Gotham's streets of Mafia grime. But no one cares about that, do they? It's Heath Ledger's Joker Hyped up as the best superhero movie of them all, and it certainly has a good go at that. Christian Bale's Batman/Wayne is once again helped by good cop Gary Oldman, and now by the new DA Harvey Dent, played in a typically smarmy manner by Aaron Eckhart, as he tries to rid Gotham's streets of Mafia grime. But no one cares about that, do they? It's Heath Ledger's Joker who is the selling point here, the role that perhaps destroyed Ledger serving as his final contribution to cinema. Unfortunately, it's a letdown. Ledger is effective, avoiding the theatricals to produce a twitching, cunning villain, but in not going over the top he also fails to ever really light up the screen. He instead manages a kind of strange form of scene-stealing: when he's onscreen, he is not magnetic, or brilliant, but when he's offscreen the film seems to be building up to his next appearance, promising the whole time that something BIG is going to happen any minute now. However, while there are plenty of BIG car chases, fights in abandoned warehouses, motorcycle stunts and contrived techno-action, the film feels hollow. The Joker is a wasted opportunity, with that cracked facade of smudged make-up disguising, apparently, pretty much nothing. Instead of being the complex, twisted maniac the film believes he is, Ledger's Joker is merely some crazy guy. Only on one or two occasions is there a hint that the character is being fleshed out, but these turn out to be red herrings, which are clumsily turned into a strange, terrible running gag - he otherwise has no personality or identity beyond the evil clown act. His only motive for his complicated, ambitious and destructive schemes appears to be that he likes being evil; this just smacks of pure laziness on the part of the film. When a series which, in its impressive first film, created a dark, complex world and peopled it with characters of similar depth and unpredictability tries to fob its audience off with a character like this, there is something seriously wrong. Cillian Murphy's menacing doctor, a highlight of the first film, makes a brief, silly cameo appearance at the start of this one, and serves as a reminder of what could have been. Aside from Ledger, the rest of the cast do a decent job; Bale is growing into the role of Batman just as his Bruce Wayne does the same here, and the film does have more success when it concentrates on the efforts of Bale, Oldman and Eckhart to fight Gotham's spreading crime. However, there are still plot holes and loose ends which go unresolved, bizarre omissions and, worst of all, occasional inexplicable events - in one scene, a character shoots the driver of the car he is travelling in, in order to kill the other passenger, but despite not appearing to leave the car himself before it crashes, he is in perfectly good health the next time he appears onscreen. This is just one example of the lazy editing and plotting which plague the film. There are some plus points, in that the effects can't be faulted - and certainly not the superb production design - and most of the action scenes are well-handled. Indeed, the film doesn't really seem overlong at two-and-a-half hours, rattling along at a good pace and throwing up plenty of surprises. Maybe I am being harsh in my criticism, as Christopher Nolan has fashioned an entertaining film which outdoes most genre efforts; but am I not right to have expected something more than just a superior action film? Expand
  89. WillyM.
    Sep 21, 2008
    4
    Heath Ledger is amazing, but the movie is a dark, nasty mess with a gaping hole in the middle where a hero should be. Feels like it's 4 hours long.
  90. PaulioG.
    Nov 18, 2008
    4
    Over the top story, acting, action, runtime, characters, and critical acclaim. The only aspect of this movie Not OTT was Batman. Who was underplayed, had a silly voice, and didnt seem to be in the movie that much.
  91. TonyO.
    Dec 14, 2008
    4
    I like Batman. I like Christopher Nolan. I like Christian Bale. I like comic book film adaptations, by and large. So why didn't I like this movie? 1. Way too long. 2. Some really pointless sub-plots and over-egged supporting characters. 3. too many tedious and unexciting action sequences. 4. In short, it suffered from the same syndrome as Spider-Man 3 and X-men 3 - yet another puffed I like Batman. I like Christopher Nolan. I like Christian Bale. I like comic book film adaptations, by and large. So why didn't I like this movie? 1. Way too long. 2. Some really pointless sub-plots and over-egged supporting characters. 3. too many tedious and unexciting action sequences. 4. In short, it suffered from the same syndrome as Spider-Man 3 and X-men 3 - yet another puffed up sequel based on a promising beginning. Of course there are some good bits Expand
  92. DaleM
    Dec 15, 2008
    4
    This movie is a mix of utterly serious themes mixed with a bunch of silliness. One minute an 18-wheeler is racing down city streets taking corners at 50 miles an hour in a manner 18-wheelers just don't do, and the next someone is brooding on some deep subject. The seriousness ruins the fun factor of the movie, and the fun stuff makes the serious seem bathetic.
  93. Sep 19, 2010
    4
    Director Nolan illustrates his movie too darkly and too gloomy. Why this super-hero movie should deserve to philosophically intricated one. Watching Super-hero movie is merely for fun.
  94. Feb 13, 2012
    4
    A film with too many plot holes. The plot is all over the place. This film really should of been split in two to make it flow better. As is, it's one giant cluster ****
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. 100
    May be the most hopeless, despairing comic-book movie in memory. It creates a world where being a superhero is at best a double-edged sword and no triumph is likely to be anything but short-lived.
  2. Mixing bravura filmmaking with flat clich├ęs in about equal amounts, The Dark Knight is all about dualism. Appropriately, the movie's half-inspired, half-frustrating.
  3. An action blockbuster extravaganza that's sadder than sad and never pretends otherwise.