1. "The Dark Knight" may be the first movie to actually be better than the hype. I couldn't believe how good it was.

Ledger is going to win the "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar by a mile.

Like Erik, I hope the film as a whole is given the proper respect. Eckhart should also be nominated. The screenplay, directing, and the film itself are all nomination worthy.

Posted at 9:44PM on Jul 19th 2008 by Wayne

2. Best screenplay, direction, and best picture?

I can agree with Ledger (though I doubt he'll get it), but the script had some serious problems that should disqualify all of the above from really even being considered.

There were three or four subplots which had little to no bearing on the way the film played out, there's an entire extra fourth act which seems strangely tacked onto an already completed film.

And by the end of the movie all of the deeply written characters fall flat and turn into cardboard caricatures of what they were the first half of the movie.

It lived up to the hype by being a good movie, but don't try to make it into something it's not, an Best Picture caliber movie, it's far too flawed for that.

That said, had they ended the movie when Dent was lying in a hospital bed, I think you'd be able to scratch just about everything I said and knock every other picture off the plain by then.

And remember, it's only July, most of the Oscar contenders come out in December so that they're fresh in Oscar voters minds. That's still a lot of movies to go before claiming anyone better than the rest.

Posted at 10:22PM on Jul 19th 2008 by killerk

3. Agreed. The acting was all spectacular, but the script was poor, plot was bad, and direction mediocre. I think Nolan just had too long a leash and too much power after the success of the first one. Sometimes restraint and limitation are good things.

Could have been amazing. Instead was just ok.

Posted at 10:31PM on Jul 19th 2008 by Paul Nicholson

4. If writing quality were the criteri for best film , there is no way that no country for old men should have won.

Posted at 11:47PM on Jul 19th 2008 by akaison

5. Too dark, too long. Batman Begins was great, but this one pushed the limit just a little too far in playing with my emotions, making it too message-oriented, and too dark.

[spoiler warning]

Then in the middle of all this real world gritty super realism, i'm supposed to believe that Dent could just walk around and keep walking and talking like normal with half his face missing, not just scarred. He looked like Imotep in The Mummy. He's a great character, but i just couldn't take him seriously with that. Scarred up, fine. but he was totally fine leavin the warehouse, then the gas on his face and jacket ignited after the building blew up...so he should be covered in burns. his jaw shouldn't be broken, his face shouldn't be missing

[end spoilers]

but over all it was just far far too dark. i just didn't enjoy the film as much as the last one, or as much as 3 or 4 other movies this year. Still good, just very dissapointed.

Posted at 10:28PM on Jul 19th 2008 by Paul Nicholson

6. It's based on a comic book, you know, so it couldn't be all too realistic, otherwise why even call Bale Batman? I think Eckhardt's CG/makeup was amazing, a real achievement. I wasn't thinking about how he survived the burns or walked around like that. I was too sucked into the film.

You're overthinking it.

Posted at 10:34PM on Jul 19th 2008 by MCW

7. If movies like "Juno", "Crash", "Atonement", "Master and Commander" and "Seabiscuit" were taken in consideration by the Academy (without being perfect) I can't think of a reason why TDK should not. It should be nominated for Best Picture and it could very well win the Oscar if the other nominees have the quality of the films mentioned above.... if it goes against films like "No Country for Old Men" (which I think deserved, hands downs, last year's oscar even though many disliked it's third act) then it would still be a great and historical runner-up. Anyhow, that's my opinion and it can be wrong (probably is)... I respect your take on this flick and I believe we can all agree that movies with the quality of TDK are ALWAYS welcome.

Posted at 12:06AM on Jul 20th 2008 by victor de la torre

8. This goes for other comments as well:

Ever since Batman & Robin, the biggest demand has been to make the franchise "darker" and now that it has been, people are complaining. ??????

I've read a lot of comments in numerous movies like "bad script, bad plot, bad directing" but no one seems to cite specific examples of their point. When you claim something could have been done better you need to include in your suggestion specifically how it could have been improved. If you don't have a clear idea of how it could have been done better, then you don't know what you are talking about.

You're allowed to not enjoy something, but don't suggest something is flawed when you don't know how to correct it.

Posted at 10:59PM on Jul 20th 2008 by Brad

9. I absolutely loved it. It may be wrong, but it feels so right to cheer on The Joker in this movie. Heath was just way to good at being The Joker - he absolutely disappeared in the makeup, and you won't recognize a thing about him.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by how dark the Knight becomes in the film, but I was.

Unbelievably, it's better than Batman Begins, and I'd say it's probably my new favorite movie of all time. Nolan is a genius, but he couldn't have done it without the dynamite cast.

Posted at 10:31PM on Jul 19th 2008 by MCW

10. the part that got me with heath's performance was when he says to batman "you and i are going to do this for a long time" or something to that effect. it took me out of the film entirely and depressed the hell out of me (though the end of the film did, as well)...it's not possible. this amazing performance will never happen again. he really is gone.

on that same note, if there is a third, and they recast, i will boycott. i'd rather they just give the joker passing mention than have someone else play this role that heath owned.

Posted at 11:24PM on Jul 19th 2008 by Jordan M.

11. "There were three or four subplots which had little to no bearing on the way the film played out, there's an entire extra fourth act which seems strangely tacked onto an already completed film.

And by the end of the movie all of the deeply written characters fall flat and turn into cardboard caricatures of what they were the first half of the movie."

"Agreed. The acting was all spectacular, but the script was poor, plot was bad, and direction mediocre. I think Nolan just had too long a leash and too much power after the success of the first one. Sometimes restraint and limitation are good things."

this is some kind of a joke, right? You got me laughing. That's a good one. You guys should be comedians.

Posted at 11:39PM on Jul 19th 2008 by Joe

12. I also completely agree with Killerk, I think the script of this movie could have used some work for it to be a contender for anything serious at the Oscars.

Alot of people may disagree with this, but to take nothing away from heath's performance, which I thought was very good, but personally I thought the joker the character was poorly written. He had no real motive for doing what he did , no real reason to hate batman or want to get rid of him, besides the fact that as Alfred suggested , he's just "crazy" which I thought at least seemed like a poor attempt at throwing him into a more central role in the film for the sake of another villain.

I personally think at least the writing of the joker was better in the 89' batman as his hatred of batman was justifiable as was his motive of causing chaos was (so he could take over the city as the head of the mob).

Posted at 12:30AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Ryan

13. Ryan said: "He had no real motive for doing what he did, no real reason to hate batman or want to get rid of him"

First off, he specifically says in the movie that he *doesn't* want to get rid of Batman. I don't even know if what he feels toward him qualifies as hatred. He sees himself as the perfect compliment to Batman. In a brilliant line riffing off a conventional love story, he says Batman "completes" him. He understands that he and Batman, to invoke the other, lesser villian in the movie, are two sides of the same coin.

Second, the lack of motivation is exactly why I think the character was very *well* written. Not only does it stay true to the comic, but it also is much scarier. If someone plays by the "rules" and ultimately cares about money, you can understand it. The Joker, in this movie, is incomprehensible. He is not motivated by any personal feeling or experience (as evidenced in the wonderful multiple stories he tells about how he got his scars); rather, he is noone in particular, he comes from nowhere, his violence is senseless -- as death and chaos themselves are. He is the embodiment of chaos, not some boring, whiney villian with a chip on his shoulder like Dent/Two-Face. Like death, he represents the end of meaning, logic, and sense. What could be more frightening? I thought it was brilliant -- and by far the best thing about any superhero movie of the last 5 or 10 years.

Posted at 10:24AM on Jul 21st 2008 by Veronica Sawyer

14. I agree. The Joker doesn't hate batman at all, and doesn't want to get rid of him. He needs Batman, and even tells him so in the movie. Secondly, the Joker has reasons for his violence. First off, he's trying to break down the rigidity of society, force "civilized" people into anarchy and chaos. On top of that is his own desire to either discover or display the thought process of humans when faced with horrible options. Throughout the movie he presents ordinary people (or extraordinary superhero's) with options, and tells them that no matter what something terrible will happen, but you get to decide what. And the inability to concretely decide the lesser of two evils will result in a third option that is even more terrible.

Thats my interpretation at least. Maybe you're right and the Joker is just some mindless hate creature, but to me he was much more cerebral and motivated than that. And to me that makes him so much more interesting.

Posted at 10:48AM on Jul 21st 2008 by Kevin

15. It's interesting that people are moved by this performance and that he's no longer with us, when by many accounts playing this part helped drive him over the edge. As he was warned by Nicholson that it would.

Posted at 2:01AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Alex

16. Seriously, dude, who knows. I mean, only a hand full of people could explain you, what makes you think Nicholson or any of us could explain Ledger. This over drama with the movie is for tabloids, not thinking people. Enjoy the film and let it go.

Posted at 3:24AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Mr. R

17. im really shocked about some of the comments here.

there was absolutely nothing wrong with the script. the subplots worked perfectly. the way joker was written was perfect.

i will tell u this right now. Heath Ledger may have killed this franchise the way he performed the joker. Every batman movie we watch from here on out we are going to compare heath's joker vs every other villain and i dont see how anyone can top this. I was thinking about this today. i dont see any future batman movie being to surpass this.

This is just like when vince carter (who i now hate and I live in toronto so theres a passion behind hating him) ruined the dunk contest. Yes his performance was amazing and he did breathtaking dunks. But it was never the same and will never be the same.

2 face was perfectly done. My date cringed and grabbed my arm tight every time they showed his face she didnt like seeing him.

My only complaint about the movie was the ending. Batman begings they showed you a direction. They have showed absolutely nothing and i find its ending is the type of ending you give when your done with a franchise.

I think nolan is going to realize that he can top this movie. he will either a bitch out like chappelle (yes thats what he did He can say all that race crap but he knew he couldnt surpass it) or B make another and people always hold number 2 against him.

It really is a shame heath is gone because i think they could have gone back and forth for a few more movies. I do think they can recast but not until batman 4 or 5. Honestly I dont even think they should make number 3. they should go to justice league then come back. by tthat time i think people will be a little more accepting.

i am talking a lot because i am very passionate about this movie. i was looking up potential villains for the next batman someone mentioned bane to me on another site and i think that could be a good story but to bring in catwoman or robin to help take his place. personally i never liked robin so catwoman may be better to introduce with a story like bane.

i skimmed through a few of batman's villains and i think the person with the story that could actually play out through a movie is the calendar man. I think his story and type of kills would be perfect for a movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Man

orrrrrr

zsasz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsasz


but he may be too similar to the joker character.

but tat this point i think he just has no choice but to go with 2 face. aaron eckhart is a great actor but i dont know if he can carry a supervillain movie as big as batman all on his own. penguin should not be cast as hes kind of too unrealistic.

anyways erik i hope u run a story with the million question. was heath's performance too good that the franchise can never surpass movie number 2.

Posted at 3:05AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Riley Freeman

18. im really shocked about some of the comments here.

there was absolutely nothing wrong with the script. the subplots worked perfectly. the way joker was written was perfect.

i will tell u this right now. Heath Ledger may have killed this franchise the way he performed the joker. Every batman movie we watch from here on out we are going to compare heath's joker vs every other villain and i dont see how anyone can top this. I was thinking about this today. i dont see any future batman movie being to surpass this.

This is just like when vince carter (who i now hate and I live in toronto so theres a passion behind hating him) ruined the dunk contest. Yes his performance was amazing and he did breathtaking dunks. But it was never the same and will never be the same.

2 face was perfectly done. My date cringed and grabbed my arm tight every time they showed his face she didnt like seeing him.

My only complaint about the movie was the ending. Batman begings they showed you a direction. They have showed absolutely nothing and i find its ending is the type of ending you give when your done with a franchise.

I think nolan is going to realize that he can top this movie. he will either a bitch out like chappelle (yes thats what he did He can say all that race crap but he knew he couldnt surpass it) or B make another and people always hold number 2 against him.

It really is a shame heath is gone because i think they could have gone back and forth for a few more movies. I do think they can recast but not until batman 4 or 5. Honestly I dont even think they should make number 3. they should go to justice league then come back. by tthat time i think people will be a little more accepting.

i am talking a lot because i am very passionate about this movie. i was looking up potential villains for the next batman someone mentioned bane to me on another site and i think that could be a good story but to bring in catwoman or robin to help take his place. personally i never liked robin so catwoman may be better to introduce with a story like bane.

i skimmed through a few of batman's villains and i think the person with the story that could actually play out through a movie is the calendar man. I think his story and type of kills would be perfect for a movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Man

orrrrrr

zsasz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsasz


but he may be too similar to the joker character.

but tat this point i think he just has no choice but to go with 2 face. aaron eckhart is a great actor but i dont know if he can carry a supervillain movie as big as batman all on his own. penguin should not be cast as hes kind of too unrealistic.

anyways erik i hope u run a story with the million question. was heath's performance too good that the franchise can never surpass movie number 2.

Posted at 3:05AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Riley Freeman

19. Great film, deserves a second viewing. I love the fact that it went beyond the usual, already seen it a million times, super hero movie.Perhaps a little too long (could have skipped a bit of the Hong Kong sub plot) and too many explosions for my taste but this is only me on a very personal note, movies change and audiences demand different things. I really,really loved it, enjoyed the performances and enjoyed the way the joker is an unstoppable force that has no origin but society itself. I am ready to watch it again.

Posted at 3:19AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Mr. R

20. I just seen it last night. It was a great movie. It was very intense and Heath Ledger was chilling as the Joker. I like it so much I am planning on seeing it a second time.

Posted at 4:54AM on Jul 20th 2008 by Angry Internet Marketer