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

169 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

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

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Jase Glenn said...

Posted on Oct 03 2008 13:32 TDK was an excellent ACTION film. However, I did think that Batman's voice was annoying as it lacked inflection. The plot was drawn out but did exist at a depth greater than what is usually found in superhero movies. I definitely can think of some improvements

Report as inappropriate
sdurnin said...

Posted on Sep 22 2008 16:40 Heart, intelligence, ambition and soul? Ambition maybe, but the other three are questionable.

Report as inappropriate
Hugo D. Hackenbush said...

Posted on Sep 19 2008 10:21 What do ya know? I must of stumbled on to the TDK Haters Club...!
The movie is flawed to be sure, but when a film is this entertaining, this well-made and this well-performed, then who cares? I am no Batman groupie, but, begrudgingly, I was forced to see this film twice, and it was the second viewing that helped me appreciate this film for what it is (the plot IS rather dense): a Hollywood blockbuster with real heart, intelligence, ambition and soul. How many other mainstream Hollywood summer films can one say that about in recent years? Pulp entertainment at it's best.
Anyone who dismisses this film as over-hyped junk has clearly let the hype influence their opinion, as well...

Report as inappropriate
sdurnin said...

Posted on Sep 05 2008 10:19 Didn't think much of it really. The security forces in the film are clueless - the Joker gets by any guards with ease, can replace anyone with his own men, and where does he get all the resources to commit his acts? Matrix and Terminator 2 are much better action movies. Was OK, but not worth the ballyhoo over it.

Report as inappropriate
Thomas Edison said...

Posted on Aug 17 2008 00:00 Indeed the movie was over-rated. However it was very entertaining. Obviously not as compelling as other movies but in this review clearly you missed a lot of underlining meanings. The Joker in this movie was not a villain more an eye opener. If more people had his outlook on life the world would be a better place. After all, come chaos brings order.

Report as inappropriate
mathewjt said...

Posted on Aug 14 2008 14:47 I love the review. It's exactly how I felt. The most over-rated movie of all time

Report as inappropriate
t said...

Posted on Aug 11 2008 20:56 people banging on saying "best movie evaar" clearly haven't seen enough films.
i love batman, but this film's narrative was too messy, it seemed like the leading cast members were squabbling for screen time.

Report as inappropriate
Niko said...

Posted on Aug 08 2008 04:45 Just to add to what Alan said. If it looked anything like the posters, it might have been fantastic, but it was an expensive episode of 24, with a guy with funny ears in the middle of it. Lucky Bob Kane never saw this.

Report as inappropriate
alan said...

Posted on Aug 07 2008 18:22 Went to see Batman last week. Hopefully im part of the silent magority, I thought it was a lot of nonsense, the plot is laughable. Batmans voice is nearly funnier.. By midway through i felt like standing up and shouting " what the hell is going on?!" sorry all u Batman fans but i feel its another case of masterly marketing men making a fortune out of us all. I fell for it again.

Report as inappropriate
bill page said...

Posted on Aug 06 2008 20:57 I have to agree with Kieth G, just when you thought it was
over, they did more chasing. and blowing things up.
forever it seemed like. The best actor is still Morgan Freeman.

Report as inappropriate
Niko said...

Posted on Aug 05 2008 14:49 Hmm..so if that is what everyone was going on about then there is no hope for modern cinema. What a uselessly written piece of nonsense performed by very good actors. Why do they feel they need to cram in 5 bad guys, and six endings? Can't they just concentrate on a great story. A classic battle between good and evil? Was not Heath Ledger enough? And sadly Bale looked daft in the costume up against his realistic backdrop. 1 out of 10. And that 1 goes to Ledger, and tell me, if Sergio Leone never won an Oscar, would heath Ledger want one?

Report as inappropriate
Keith G said...

Posted on Aug 04 2008 15:11 Both the person sitting next to me at the film and I were clawing our armrests for dear life by about the mid-point of the movie, verbally asking God to end this movie. While I agree that Ledger's character was really excellently twisted, this writer felt that he was no Jack Nicholson. I can hardly remember paying to see a less satisfying movie.

Report as inappropriate
Vij said...

Posted on Aug 01 2008 18:25 Lets get some perspective guys. He's a critic he's allowed his opinion & end of the day he is just one person airing his view, you can take it or leave it. My take? This movie is probably the best Superhero movie I have ever seen. Greatest movie ever? Not sure about that. What Nolan has put together however is a solid dark piece of of blistering, pulsating & intense awesome cinema. I have a couple of gripes, the moral dilemma on the boats was a bit obvious & cheesy & unneccasary. The other gripe is the movie is slightly overlong due to the way Harvey Dents final scene was played out. Them gripes aside the film is superb. The middle section car chase sequence was scorchingly hot & when Batman flipped the Batpod against the wall, WOW that was cool. Ledger is the Joker personified, he is THE JOKER. Best compliment I can pay to him is I didnt ever notice Heath Ledger just The Joker. The soundtrack accompanied the movie superbly, intense, taught, epic & poignant. I loved the summarising Commisioner Gordon gives at the end to the beat of Zimmers' score painting a real feel of hurt we felt for the mantle Batman had to take up at the end. A poignant finish to an exhausting, blistering movie which like all great movies you'll want to watch at least twice & a feeling of an event & experience you'll never forget. If you like a film of this genre that is prepared to get serious yet thoroughly entertaining then this is for you. Go See it.

Report as inappropriate
d said...

Posted on Jul 26 2008 13:58 Batmans new movie sucks worst batman ever, especially cause batman looses thru the whole thing, who would want to watch that, except a butch of loosers. A Hero is Hero not a looser and we need Postive Heros without them they're is nothing to aspire too.

Report as inappropriate
borrisbatanov said...

Posted on Jul 25 2008 23:51 Amazing, this outpouring of enthusiasm for what' s really a sprawling mess, a movie grappling for one thrill to top the last.
Sad: Junkies of excitement need an ever stronger fix. This is it.
Got way tired of the plot reversals and ultimate standoffs at least 45 minutes before the lights went on.
Ledger ain't nothin', just another tongue waggin' pervert. Give him an Oscar? No, give me an Oscar for knowing how to pump gas.
O, Batman sacrifices himself like Jesus, the scapegoat. Hmmm, smells like teenage suffering.
Enjoyed shots of Lower Wacker, as if enuff movies haven't already been shot down there, eg, Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer.
Spend $$$ on a movie and they will come, like lonely ants needing to spawn and praise the lord.

Report as inappropriate