The Dark Knight review (long analysis)

[reapersaurus]

The Dark Knight is the most overrated "superhero" film of all time.
I can't believe the incredibly overblown, unjustified hype this film is getting.

I say "superhero" because TDK is quite simply, a super-spy film/crime drama. They basically turned the genre into The Bourne Identity. Lots of people plotting and double-crossing and out-guessing the out

Comments

Re: Dark Knight

[anonymous]

First of all the Joker needs Batman to exist because when he explains that Batman "completes" him, he is addressing the principle of binaries (used widely in literature). A binary are two opposing forces that need each other to exist because they counter one another. Similar to two domino pieces leaning against one another. Batman (Good, justice, hope, people are inherently good) vs. Joker (chaos, evil, believes people are inherently evil). Without one part of the binary equation, the purpose of the other ceases to exist. The film is much deeper than what you are mentioning above in your comments. How can you say that it diminished the character? You should read between the lines much more than you did, not just the surface basic elements. Also, this is a comic book movie so when people escape uninjured or the Joker is poorly guarded, this does not take away from the film. It does not have to be completely realistic. The Joker is unharmed because he a force of nature (chaos, evil), more than a man. What he represents is larger than his character and the idea behind the Joker makes the movie work. Batman has one rule, not to kill and this is what he stands for. Why would he break his one rule to kill the Joker? He can punch people and throw them off balconies because they are evil or corrupt. Batman is about principles and that is his main principle. The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent (then Two-Face) and when he shoots the driver of the limo, this is showing his true evil side where every person is judged on pure chance in his world (flipping his coin). The Joker exposed his good nature as Harvey Dent (The White Knight) and turns his character who decides the fate of others on a coin. When the Joker says "take off your mask" he is trying to show people that Batman is human and not a infallible presence. The Joker's whole purpose is to uncover (or unmask) people and show their true nature (which he believes is evil). This is why is was a point of emphasis that neither boat pulls the trigger to kill the other boat (pointing at the fact that people may be inherently good). As far as the bullet, he got a finger print off the bullet to search the database to check for a previous offender.

Re: Dark Knight

[stayingamused]

Thank you for your response. Obviously this is a subjective matter on which it is not possible to reach agreement through debate: you saw the movie and had a satisfying experience, I saw the movie and had a somewhat satisfying, somewhat frustrating and confused experience. I will have to see the movie again when it comes out on DVD to reconcile my confusion about whether the Joker seemed to want to destroy or preserve Batman.

As to the Joker surviving all mishaps because he is a symbol, not subject to real-world forces, I guess that works if you get your head into the proper comic-book mindset, it just jarred me a little while watching it.

My point about Batman's rule about not killing is that if you conduct yourself as the Batman does, you're going to be killing people on a regular basis. Out of all the people you pummel into unconsciousness or toss off balconies (as in the nightclub scene), a certain percentage are not going to survive. When Batman flipped the trailer truck, was he confident that the Joker would emerge unscathed? I don't get that part. Killing bad guys should not be such a big deal to him, it doesn't make sense to me.

I enjoyed many scenes in the movie but there were too many irrelevant elements for my taste, which prevented it from building to a climax. I agree with the "New Yorker" reviewer, who wrote, "The narrative isn't shaped coherently to bring out contrasts and build toward a satisfying climax. The Dark Knight is constant climax; it's always in a frenzy, and it goes on forever. Nothing is prepared for, and people show up and disappear without explanation; characters are eliminated with a casual nod. There are episodes that are expensively meaningless (a Hong Kong vignette, for instance), while crucial scenes are truncated at their most interesting point -- such as the moment in which the disfigured Joker confronts a newly disfigured Harvey Dent (a visual sick joke) and turns him into a vicious killer."

However, my son has seen the movie three times now, as has my niece, partly in hopes of figuring it all out, so obviously Chris Nolan knows how to create a blockbuster, regardless of the quibbles of people like me.

Re: Dark Knight

[rpmiller]

I just wanted to add that if Batman has one rule and that is not to kill, how does he reconcile the fact that he obviously purposefully and with malice killed Ra's al Ghul in the first movie? Does he justify it by saying he killed himself? If that was the case, than why not do it again with the Joker? Why didn't he save Ra's al Ghul the same way he saved the Joker if he doesn't kill anyone? I think those are pretty important questions.