Film

Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in New York, plus articles, trailers and more

The Dark Knight (2008)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Critics' rating

Average user rating

170 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out New York

Smart directors tend to adopt a one-for-them, one-for-me ideology in their relationship with the studios; the dichotomy, however, usually doesn’t play out in a single film. Christopher Nolan’s sequel to 2005’s Batman Begins internalizes that schism between serious aims and summer-movie duties. The problem isn’t the admittedly jaw-dropping sturm und drang—this is Batman, not Bergman—but how the pummeling action rarely informs the psychological angst. The personality split between the operatic Dark Knight of the soul and the OMG set pieces is almost as pronounced as the maladies of our freak trio.

That would be the Caped Crusader (Bale), still wrestling with a DSM-IV’s worth of disorders; Harvey Dent (Eckhart), Gotham City’s do-gooder district attorney with a transformational face-lift coming his way; and the Joker (Ledger). Thankfully, an origin story isn’t offered for the grinning archnemesis; he simply appears like the Ebola virus, armed with an insatiable appetite for destruction and John Wayne Gacy’s makeup manual. Next to Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s propulsive drone of a score, Ledger’s performance is the most dynamic element of the movie. What the late actor accomplishes with little more than a nurse uniform and a Groucho Marx waddle makes the various explosions, as well as Bale’s raspy, remote characterization, pale in comparison. If Nolan’s only goal were to add to another revisionist wrinkle to an iconic villain, Ledger’s brutal, batshit malevolence would qualify The Dark Knight as a success.

The stakes, however, are higher. To paraphrase a colleague, the director is going for the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance of men-in-tights films, and he comes remarkably close. Nolan is pondering big themes: post-9/11 concepts of justice, the fragility of social bonds, when it’s better to simply print the legend. All of which makes superfluous side trips like an IMAX-ed Mission: Impossible–style sequence that much more disappointing. Yes, it’s visually impressive, but any hack can do a halfway decent job with trailer-ready tangents. Not everyone can push the genre forward, and the fact that Nolan’s padded popcorn flick isn’t the streamlined masterpiece it could have been is a real buzzkill.

Author: David Fear 2008-07-15 15:57:55

Time Out New York Issue 668: July 17–23, 2008

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

a person said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 16:42 great review. well articulated.

Report as inappropriate
AdamF90 said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 16:10 ...yeah

Report as inappropriate
future critic_84 said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 16:03 Being a critic in any genre is a hard thing to do. The critic has to take in account all the elements of that particular genre. But when it comes down to the fans, you will have someone that will think they are the critics because they know so much about the character or the director. That when someone else writes something bad about it; they are ready to pounce on it or attack the article. The way a lion would attack a zebra...
To Mr Fear,
You don't have to apologize to these FOOLS. You get the opportunity to watch a movie for FREE because you are the FILM CRITIC not some jerk who lives at home with his mommy Your review is quite honest and I commend you on that and I bet you took into account who was going to read it, right...
AND TO THOSE THAT BROKE DOWN THESE REVIEW; YOUR A BUNCH OF A**WHOLES....

Report as inappropriate
yourmom said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 14:02 This review is bad and you should feel bad.
Maybe when I become an elitist new york film critic, I can write overly harsh and almost unreadable reviews too. Then I'll become immune to the nasiness of the internet and move on with life.
If I were you I'd cry myself to sleep at night.

Report as inappropriate
anonymous said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 13:49 Coming from someone who HAS seen the movie, I can legitimately say that the movie is a overall a wonderful film. The opinion on whether it's a masterpeice should NOT reduce its score to a paltry three stars. This critic is overreacting.
I think fans should take comfort in the fact that this movie will go down in cinematic history as one of the finest superhero movies ever made, and this critic will have lost all credibility. Bye-bye.

Report as inappropriate
The Ty said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 12:27 So Mr. Fear gave The Dark Knight 3/6, and The Strangers 4/6? I was stuck in the Camp Lejuene base theater for that flick and I wanted my money back - only to realize it was free for me! At a running time of something like 70 minutes, it made me believe in wormholes and time manipulation because in those 70 minutes 3 years of my life disappeared. Strangers 4/6, indeed.
Your past does not look bright and your due diligence is not branded in a good light. I have yet to see The Dark Knight, but I will not heed your rating as your equivalence does not compute.

Report as inappropriate
Red said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 11:17 While I'm sure I'll disagree with this assessment due to a ridiculous personal hype factor and my own taste in movies, and assuming the author of this review isn't simply "going against the grain," he's simply doing his job. He's a critic. If they're worth their pay they call it as they see it, end of story. It's rather ridiculous that people here who want TDK to be a mind-blowing movie - as I do - are so ticked off that one guy disagrees.
That said, the reasons provided for giving the movie a measly 3/6 are rather questionable.

Report as inappropriate
Red said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 11:13 While I'm sure I'll disagree with this assessment due to a ridiculous personal hype factor and my own taste in movies, and assuming the author of this review isn't simply "going against the grain," he's simply doing his job. He's a critic. If they're worth their pay they call it as they see it, end of story. It's rather ridiculous that people here who want TDK to be a mind-blowing movie - as I do - are so ticked off that someone doesn't really think it is.

Report as inappropriate
CS said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 10:47 I wonder... if Dark Knight is bad like Fear and other people say, what about Burton's "Batman"?
To knock this movie down because it lacks the "human element", or character development... did anyone see the first movie, "Batman Begins"? Of all super hero movies, this movie gave a face and real character to Bruce Wayne, and Batman. It was one of the best superhero movies, if not THE best, ever made,

Report as inappropriate
Hans Veritas said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 09:43 David Fear, thank you! I commend someone that tells it like he sees it, and let's face it, it's true Dark Knight isn't Bergman. And there is our loss. I was looking for a negative review of this because, let's face it, most of the critics ARE fluffers. (Great response, by the way, Mr. Fear.) For those of you who don't know this term, Google it. Of course I'm going to it, being a fervent addict of the Dark Knight, especially since Frank Miller's revisioning of it.
The dumbing down of audiences (Bergman, is that a breakfast cereal?) is directly proportional to pandering to the lowest common denominator. Watch a film from the 70's followed by a present day film, and something becomes apparent. The loss of exploring the human condition in favor of escaping it.
I'm not reviewing this film or the industry, however, I'm just thanking a critic swimming in a sea of ignorance.

Report as inappropriate
Phillip said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 07:43 To those cretins who are criticizing David Fear for not having made any movies, remember, you don't have to lay an egg to be able to smell a bad one.

Report as inappropriate
H said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 04:47 This is a good movie by any standards. "any hack can do a halfway decent job with trailer-ready tangents"?
any hack can be a critic.

Report as inappropriate
jimbobby said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 02:48 Hey Dave, what the fuck are you talking about?

Report as inappropriate
pete said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 01:07 AT LEAST this neg review isn't prissy. No "uncivil shavian dialogue" bullshit, or bonehead yearning for Tim Burton/Anton Furst mofo-ism. I probably won't agree with this guy (when I finally get to see the friggen movie) but at least he seems like he WANTED to like it. He probably hates 95 percent of the movies he sees, OR he holds things up to a ludicrous standard of what they MIGHT have been, and I can respect those things.

Report as inappropriate
Ziggy stardust said...

Posted on Jul 16 2008 00:41 Have not seen the movie yet (I definitely will). But I did want to add that, just by the shear response of this review I am firmly confident that this movie will turn great numbers. Not only will it do well at the box office, it could break records. If so, then "at least you'll have company". That is, being in a class truly of your own. I mean, it may not seem like it, but you may have ruined your reputation/career with a poorly written review of a movie that may be better than you let it be.
Is It possible you made no personal connection with any character or sequence of events? Is it possible you played critic at a time when you should have surrendered to your imagination and digested it later? Is it possible that simplistic sentences can sound beautiful next to a collection of interesting but rare vocabulary? I cant say your wrong, or tell you how to do your job, but I probably wont agree with you, and you should be doing it much better.

Report as inappropriate