"The interview is on TV for several minutes, and the whistle-blower still hasn't given up the goods"

Ummm... has this guy ever seen ET or The Insider...? That's what they do - tease their best story at the very top of the show (and every five minutes thereafter) and wait until the last 2 minutes to drop the (usually worthless) bomb.

But the Scarecrow thing was useless. If all Batman had to do to get rid of him was say "Get out of town" then why was there a first movie?

distractedbyshinyobjects

Re: Scarecrow's appearance, it was one of the first (if not THE first) instances of Nolan trying to establish the theme of Batman-continuously-capturing-rogues-who-then-escape-from-Arkham, rinse, repeat. That theme is in the animated series (all of them), the comics, etc., so I actually liked that he had escaped. Batman seemingly never puts a villain away for good, which allows the villains to evolve and become more dynamic over the course of time.

LauraElizabeth

@hummingpenguin: The last time I read Kevin Smith's blog, Harley Quinn was still watching the Disney Channel and pretending to be Hannah Montana.

Losin_it

Harley Quinn. And haters to the left, plzkthnx. It's an awesome movie.

hummingpenguin

Spoiler Warning:

I can't believe they did what they did to Maggie Gyllenhaal's character. It makes sense, with regard to Harvey Dent's arc, but still, I did not expect that.

Dr. Spaceman, Esq.

I was kind of waiting for this, but surprised there wasn't more solid critiques from more legitimate sources before.

I thought the film had really inventive parts, but overall I found it to be a bit of a mess structurally and overly long and, worst of all, redundant.

White knight/dark knight. Got it.

LBJeffries

@LauraElizabeth: Yup, pretty clear to me too. Especially since a major point of the film was that Batman has one rule, that is, don't kill them. Don't kill them? They keep coming back.

Garrison Dean, Mr. Privilege

I was waiting for all of the characters to turn to the camera in unison and ask the audience: What would YOU do?

How about Zeus as the conscience of the movie?

djjamestaylor

@Dr. Spaceman, Esq.: Maybe she'll come back as Harley Quinn, suffering from a Stockholm Syndrome -life affection for the Joker.

StaringatScreen

@distractedbyshinyobjects: Batman leaves him in cuffs. He never says "Get out of town" or whatever. He does tell the impersonators that he doesn't want to see them out there again.

MayhemintheHood

Only a few of those are legitmate "head scratchers"? I mean, the last one is "Why such a serious tone?" Ummm...maybe they wanted to make it in a serious tone?

As far as the Scarecrow goes: This movie is supposed to be a few weeks after Batman Begins, in which Scarecrow is never caught or apprehended. We only see him get tazed and then rides away on a horse. So in The Dark Knight, we see Batman basically closing that book, so to speak. Also, it's not that confusing of a scene...the Russians are pissed because his drugs make people trip balls too much. Scarecrow was never a badass, just had good shit, so it's not a headscratcher as to why he was disposed of easily, once he came out of hiding.

I loved the movie, thought it was great. But it wasn't perfect. I have not seen a movie on IMDB that does not have continuity errors or factual mistakes. But people complaining about the Scarecrow scene just werent understanding it or weren't aware of the timeline. Or they didn't watch Batman Begins.

Oh, and the fight scenes. Sure, Nolan's no Paul Greengrass but who cares? We see him do some fighting moves and dudes get their asses kicked. I don't need to see Batman kick, pull guard and transition to a gogoplata.

MayhemintheHood

@MayhemintheHood: Nope, the film took place a year later -- if it was only a few weeks, how could Batman subdue the gangs enough for them to seriously consider Joker's offer?

How could the Bat vigilantes get organized?

How could Wayne furnish both his underground workspace and his penthouse apartment so quickly?

@distractedbyshinyobjects: Sure, they could tease the interview with Reese.... if they had *any other story* to go with, which they didn't. Reese was on camera, all that time, basically creating dead air if he didn't tell the secret, and giving everyone watching enough context that Batman was associated with Wayne Enterprises, if he simply talked about his job. Nolan may know lots about movies, but dick about reality TV.

pink_clerical_collar

@pink_clerical_collar: My thing about that whole Larry King-ish segment is they close the book on it with Bruce Wayne saving the leaker's life, so we're supposed to think he's not going to say anything. But, like, didn't he have to tell the producers before he got booked? And they told the PAs, and they put it on their blogs - this thing would have been all over the Gotham Drudge Report by dinner.

DavidWatts

@Losin_it: I thought Gotham was Chicago? Or at least, a mix between Chicago and NYC. The layout doesn't resemble Newark in the least.

LauraElizabeth

@pink_clerical_collar:You really have this stuff nailed down. Please settle an argument. The license plates in the movie said "Gotham", which I guess means the "State of Gotham". I assume Gotham City is the captial of Gatham. Since New York is mentioned in other Batman lore, I don't think Gotham and New York can be the same place. Okay. My cousin says there is no New Jersey in DK-reality because Gotham is really New Jersey and Gotham City is analogous to Newark. True? Because if that's the case, I always wonder why Batman just doesn't go to New York and fight crime instead. It's a bigger stage and he could do more good there. He could just take the Bat-boat or whatever it is to cross the Hudson, or take the Batmobile through the Holland Tunnel.

Losin_it

@MayhemintheHood: re: "oh and the fight scenes..."

Funny. But I do agree with this one point of criticism. However, this is true in almost EVERY modern action movie, I find. As soon as there's action, the camera is waaaaay too close. It usually looks good in the editing room, on a small screen, after the director and editor have seen it dozens of times in the process of splicing it together, but blown up on the big screen, it looks terrible and to the audience it looks like: establish shot - bunch of stuff happens, lots of quick cuts - results of fight. It's absurd and directors need to realize it... it's been getting worst and worst since the late 90's when handheld cameras took over hollywood.

LoveHandles

Still haven't seen it yet. Waiting for screening on the lot or download.

Benovite

This movie was a dark take on Batman and the Joker. It was not 'The Seventh Seal' or 'Rashomon'. It wasn't even 'Chinatown', Jake.

The funniest of the attempts to puff this piece of entertainment up into something it is not was the WSJ article wherein a total moron spent many column inches making the case that 'The Dark Knight' was an homage to George W. Bush and his manly codpiece of death.

See where this silliness can lead...

gwendolyn

@LauraElizabeth: Yeah, it did look like Chicago in the movie...now I am even more confused than usual...!

Losin_it

@hummingpenguin: Harlequin indeed.

In my memory, they started showing the magazine show when Reese was first introduced, i.e. star guest of someone who'd they'd been teasing all thirty minutes. So in the first sitting they talk about himself and then they ask him why he thinks he should do this. Then they go to commercial. Then they take phone calls, cue The Joker. Cue Reese terrified for his life, and not talking. I don't see why there would have to be lots of dead air. Also, big shocker, when you cut between locations and scenes, chances are you messing with the idea that it happens in 'real time' and so the scene or scenes they cut to after introducing Reese (Joker on boat) were happening before he was introduced. So I don't understand why that is even a vague argument against the editorial choices.

As for the hand to hand combat scenes, have you read a comic book? I was just reading Batman and Son, and I couldn't tell what was going on in the fight scenes. Take it as a biffbangboom and then the result. And move on.

aspiringexpatriate

i still like it, though i agree that the 2nd viewing does make some of the problems stand out more (or maybe it was the ginormous imax screen). that said, this laundry list of complaints also comes from a guy who prefers katie holmes in the role of rache to maggie gyllenhaal, so take that for what it's worth.

accordionhero

"But the unrelenting blue of the film, the dearth, the depression -- it's all a bit much for a "Batman" movie. Is it too much to ask to lighten up a bit, and maybe throw a Prince song in the movie for good measure? Really, folks."
- Adam Graham

"Maybe stick to watching the popcorn-action-no-brainer summertime fare you seem to ache for? I hear the latest "Mummy" flick might be just what you're looking for."
- ubermovieguy

"heehee"
- Scooby-Doo-Underwear

Scooby-Doo-Underwear

@LBJeffries:

I think the critics of New Yorker, Newsweek, New York, and Salon offered solid critiques. Did you expect the shills at Time, Rolling Stone, etc. to stand up to what may be the most successful movie ever? Didn't think so.

Edward Lionheart

@Losin_it: It looked like Chicago because it was shot in Chicago, but it's still supposed to be Gotham City, which is fictional. I've never heard the proposition that Gotham is in New Jersey. I've always understood it to be a fictional stand-in for NYC.

@MayhemintheHood: Regarding how much time has passed since Batman Begins, doesn't the Joker make an explicit reference to "one year ago" when he's addressing all the assembled thugs in his "Kill the Batman" speech at the beginning?

antisocialite

Sorry if someone else brought this up, but...what about the Asian gangster who's sitting atop the pile of money that the Joker sets on fire? Does he die? The camera shows him up there but never shows his reaction to the fire, and we never see or hear from him again. It's like they just forgot about him completely...that really bugged me. Also there were a lot of scenes during fights where I couldn't figure out what was happening, or it was too dark to make out what was going on.

Other than those complaints, though, I thought the film was really fun. I give it an A-.

antisocialite

@pink_clerical_collar: Actually, the more I think about that...that either cant be true or then that's the biggest flaw. Joker was robbing banks at the end of Begins. Was robbing a bank at the beginning of TDK. Batman just ignored the Joker or didn't do anything about him for a whole year?

I think it's more like weeks/a month or two after Begins, at most.

MayhemintheHood

@pink_clerical_collar: Hmmm, yeah. I can see your point. Either way though, Scarecrow was never caught(we learn that from one of the viral Gotham City News clips before the movie was released). So his appearance still kicks ass in my opinion.

MayhemintheHood

One more thing about the original article in question...and it's been griped about plenty times. The Mayors Eyeliner: The dude looks like that naturally. Make fun of him for having dark eyelashes, but not for wearing eyeliner. People into Lost said the same stuff when he was on it, but that's just the way he looks. Or maybe he got eyelid tattoos.

MayhemintheHood

@antisocialite: That's what I think gets confusing. He does say "a year ago, these cops and lawyers wouldnt dare blah blah" but he's just saying that a year ago, Batman wasn't around. So how could it take place a year after Batman Begins? Batman was around at the end of Batman Begins, and had already put away the crime lord and made a few other big splashes. IMDB FAQ says six months, and it says its been confirmed in interviews, as well. I do see some reviews say it's a year later, but if you think about it, that doesn't make any sense. I just think they're confused by the same line I mention above.

MayhemintheHood

Gotham and Metropolis are supposedly analogues for West/East sides of NYC. They don't really exist anywhere, but for a brief moment in the 90s, the Official Atlas Of The DC Universe showed Gotham as being essentially Newark, right across the Hudson from Manhattan.

Also, everyone's favorite punching bag Robin grew up and now polices NYC all alone. So you know...cut him some slack, people.

I'll go back to IO9 now.

CapnCalamity

@Losin_it: I'm embarrassed to admit I noticed this, but Bruce Wayne's sports car (don't ask me to spell Lambor...stuff) had Illinois plates. I always thought Gotham was NYC, but I guess it's cheaper to shoot in Chicago.

BrownSugarTits

@BrownSugarTits: Gotham is a composite of Chicago. Metropolis is a composite of New York. D'uh. I guess someone didn't spend their formative years buried in comic books instead of pussy. ;-)

DickWhitman

Fuck the backlash...overexposure alone doesn't justify it. The film was brilliant--and I've seen all the movies you have and more. But, of course, everybody likes to throw stones at a juggernaut; it's human nature. Well, fuck human nature in this instance. It is good and healthy to have a range of opinions, and I encourage dissent, but it should be warranted by the piece itself, not a reaction to wide-spread acclaim. That's not voicing dissent, it's being a contrarian for the sole purpose of distinguishing yourself. Original!

DickWhitman

I don't know if it's covered at any of those places, but Gordon's "Hey, I'm dead!" ploy makes absolutely no sense. So the Joker and his crazy pals infiltrate the 21-gun salute at the funeral, and in all the pandemonium Gordon pretends to be shot, so he can lie low until it's time to put on the full facemask and drive the SWAT van. Which the Joker knew he was going to do, so he allowed Gordon to arrest him so he could get inside the police station and blow it up with his unwitting schizophrenic suicide bomber.

Wha-huh??

It was totally awesome as it was happening, but afterward it was like... "Okay, that made movie sense. Maybe."

Still. Ledger is the Joker. Past? Future? Fuck off. Heath Ledger is the Joker.

Jim Treacher

on the subject of critical dispositions towards the dark knight , i'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion outside of the cinephile blogs of michael atkinson's withering throwdown on the topic. some excerpts:

"It's time, I'm afraid, to let loose the dogs of apocalyptic cultural complaint, this time upon the throat of The Dark Knight, which I was coerced into finally seeing despite my official moratorium on voluntarily watching superhero movies, or any film in which someone puts on a mask or has "special powers," the latter of which is all by itself a dead giveaway, as a narrative device, to the film-culture mess we find ourselves in. Superheroes are, essentially by definition, idiotic confections intended for children, and the fact that I can't escape them as an adult so far this millennium makes my blood boil...The Dark Knight epitomizes the problem specifically not by simply being a Caped Crusader trifle masquerading as Paradise Lost, but because it failed to do the simplest things movies have always done: tell a fucking story. The film is quite literally one violent set-piece followed by a 20-second snatch of exposition, to explain what significance the set-piece is supposed to have, repeated again and again and again, for over 2.5 interminable hours."

the complete boilover: [www.zeroforconduct.com]

duanejones

The Dark Knight is The Godfather 2 and 3 of comic book movies.

AprilBurhans

o man, I thought it was terrible.

TimGunn

@distractedbyshinyobjects:

But the Scarecrow thing was useless. If all Batman had to do to get rid of him was say "Get out of town" then why was there a first movie?

In this movie, he was in goofy/nuts mode, no longer the compelling and devious Scarecrow, but the nutso shadow of his past self.

InfiniTrent