PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.... explain this to me, i know that you saw and reviewed the same movie that i watched this past weeked. How in the world can you give this a 3 star rating??

For one, there's a reason that there wasn't a "substantial antagonist" in Batman Begins. It's because the movie didn't need one and Christopher Nolan admitted he didn't want one. One of the major reasons why Batman Begins completely surpassed any other vision of Batman we've seen on the big screen is because we learn what makes Bruce Wayne tick. The whole point of "beginning" anything is to set the stage for the acts to come. We learned how Bruce Wayne developed physically, mentally, emotionally into Batman. All the different factors in his life helped to develop his character, there didn't need to be a villain. Now that we know how it all began, enter the Joker, your "substantial antagonist" and Harvey Dent, the tragic hero.

The movie could have potentially been trimmed down to fit a more comfortable 2 hours, but instead Nolan gives us a movie saturate with anarchy, the causes, and the effects. From the bank robbery at the beginning to the police chasing the "villainous" Batman at the end, we see bit by bit how the anarchy can turn the light on any hero into being an anti-hero or even an antagonist. You NEED to see the relationships that build to a climax and end up falling apart at the end. I think one of the more intriguing pieces to the puzzle was the triangle between Wayne, Dent, and Dawes, and how the Joker affects all three with his terrorism on Gotham. Some movies work with complex plots and if you pay attention, there's more to the plots than meets the eye. This movie was not intended to be the joy-ride that Iron Man was at the beginning of the summer, Nolan wanted to push the envelope and present his masterpiece: it is not very often that a movie has such high expectations and EXCEEDS them. The Dark Knight does so.

this film could not have been trimmed down. if anything, it needed another hour and an intermission. sure, its a superhero movie, but its still a good FILM. forget about the layers of plot (God forbid a movie these days has 3 acts!) and forget about the multitude of characters (read a novel lately?) this movie is a 5 star all the way; from the incredible minimalism of batman's new lair to the fantastic Gotham skylines, this film delivers in droves.

comedy, inside actor jokes, fantastic acting and action that makes you laugh at its implausibility... its awesome. youll probably see it anyway, but this review spent too much time on Ledger's passing and not enough on his jaw dropping gavitas. part of me dislikes the idea of an Oscar nod for this, but really, he deserves it.

-mbnjmntrb

i gave it five because you only gave it three on a scale of four; just trying to say its better than your review. and as far as villains, this movie has two by the end of the film. two choices are presented in the film - one batman has control over and another he can do nothing about, other than be what he doesnt want to be (a metaphor).

i still cannot agree that the film needed to be cut down! if the viewer only wants to remember the "good" parts, then they can edit down the film once it hits dvd. i honestly dont think anything could be cut. party scenes? the corporate weasel that plays a huge part in the joker's call to anarchy? the sonar/cell phone tech stuff is another metaphor for the misuse of "protective measures" in society; who do YOU want to see everything that happens in a city? someone that will protect you or some vigilante only bent on one conquest?

i will say i did like spidey 2 the first time i saw it when it was called superman 2.

Didn't we already have this discussion about Spidey 2?

Yes, it's a similar story to Superman II in that Spider-Man gives up his identity as Spider-Man, but the "Spider-Man No More" story is a classic Spidey story and thus is not subject to the catcalls of "Superman II ripoff," especially since the surrounding story and even the methods were different. Spidey 2 is still the second-best comic/superhero movie ever, though TDK is clearly superior from my perspective.

Anyway, I agree with you that TDK was pitch perfect, except for the cell phone thing, which I thought strained credulity a bit. I get the metaphor they were going for, and I bought it the way they used it early on, but it was just too silly for the movie to me. Plus Morgan Freeman's line of "30 million people" as the population of Gotham was a bit much, though maybe he was exaggerating.

BTW, I heard an interesting theory on the Wayne Enterprises guy who figured out Batman's identity. There's a podcast for Slash Film that discusses the film with Kevin Smith (BEWARE SPOILERS), where one of the hosts posits that the guy may be The Riddler (the guy's name is "Mr. Reese," which if you say it three times fast kinda sounds like "mysteries."

Yeah, I think it's bunk too, but it's an interesting rumor, and maybe is a bit of an easter egg regarding the next film's villain if nothing else.

One more thing: Did anyone catch the in-joke regarding the mayor of Gotham? He was played by Nestor Carbonell, who played "Batmanuel" on the short-lived (but still wonderful) live-action version of "The Tick."

Is it just me or does the mayor look like he's wearing eye liner through the whole movie?! What kinda of message was that?

Update: Now I know it's not just me, there is all kinds of discussions of this on the internet. Haha.

I'm with you, Victory33. I found the eyeliner thing sort of hilarious but mostly distracting. What's the deal?

Was it a character trait? I don't recall him being specifically heroic. I'd have to watch it again to speak for certain, though. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.

I don't think it meant anything, it was just really weird looking...and apparently a lot of people have noticed this.

I also want to give Batman: Dark Knight props for using my Avatar in the movie...the bigfoot reference was awesome!