The Dark Knight Revisited

[Coco]

A couple years later and another big blockbuster in the bank by director Christopher Nolan, I figured now would be the right time to give this gem another look. For those of you who weren't paying attention during round one, let me set the scene.

The year was 2008. The month was... July? Yeah, that sounds about right. The long awaited follow up to Batman Begins featuring the highly praised showing of the recently passed Heath Ledger as The Joker dominated the box office, had people turn out for multiple viewings, many a person praising it as one of the greatest films of all time. Some compared it to Heat. (Don't ask me why) Some said it was revolutionary for the superhero film. Now, however, opinion regarding it seems to have soured considerably, with the word "overrated" tossed around rather liberally.

Where do you stand on the film now? Is that a change from when you first saw it?

Heath as The Joker: As great as it's made out to be?

Also, how many people did Two Face kill? I have trouble with the count sometimes.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I've always been a fan of the film, although I've also always stated that it's grossly overrated. The way you hear some people talk about it you'd think it was the greatest film of all time. Dude, it ain't even the best superhero film of 2008. As good as The Dark Knight is, it just ain't as enjoyable as Iron Man. Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List might be his most ''important'' film, his most well made etc. But Jaws is better, isn't it!

Iron Man is entertaining from start to finish. Genuinely enjoyable and smart. As is The Dark Knight. However, while Iron Man is a 4 star film throughout, The Dark Knight is a 5 star film up until 90 minutes in, then it's very much a 3 star film. The ending of it is actually awful in comparison to the rest of the film. An unsuitable ending for both The Joker & Two-Face. The latter of which has his story hastily chucked together into a thoroughly unsatisfying conclusion.

The Joker was great, but he's exactly as I imagined he would be. He should've been nominated for that Oscar, but the only reason he won was because he died.

 

[YEDemon]

I like the movie, and in time, the thrill of watching it has lessened, but Ledger's Joker never gets old or lessens to me. The character is amazing to watch each and every time regardless of how much the rest of the movie may not hold up, in my opinion.

 

[Eck]

The Dark Knight is easly one of my favorites of all time. That said the more I watch it I can't help but wonder why I think that. It's a good movie but after the tenth time it loses it's glory.

Heath as the Joker wa just ammazing. His performance was flawless. His laugh just sends shivers down my spine.

And the ammount of people Two-Face killed I don't think it was that many. All I can remeber is the bar scene where he killed the guy.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

The Dark Knight is quite possibly the most overrated film of the past 10 years. Sure, Heath Ledger was great in it, but it pales in comparison to Batman Begins. The film's dark and violent, but the edge and purpose that the original had is missing in this sequel. Also, it doesn't help that one of Chris Nolan's inspirations for this film was Michael Mann's Heat; sure, I see a superficial resemblance, but there's no empathy between Batman and The Joker like there was between Vincent Hanna and Neil McCauley.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I'm the guy who says that this or that is overrated and people are always bashing me (see the red rep?)..... but this time I disagree completely.
the best superhero film? DEFINITELY! first look at all the Batman franchise. yeah those with Tim Burton were ok, but Michael Keaton was JUST good, NOT great. then you got all the sexys but doesn't know how to act as Batmans: Val Kilmer and George Clooney. films that don't matter in film history.

then you got all the other superhero films: Spidey, Superman, Daredevil, Iron Man, Hulk, Elektra, Fantastic Four, X-Men, Wolverine until now (they are going to release Thor, Green Lantern...). Spidey: 1-2 greats, however the third....Venom is one of my favorite villains but they ruined it. Iron Man was awesome! but it's only a superhero movie, it's not a movie that defines how good is an actor. X-Men were all great for me, but same problem as X-Men. then all the pther were complete shit!

Now The Dark Knight: you've got probably the greatest villain in all history of comic, you got a director that has films that are pretty psichologics, you've got an actor that is pretty versatile and it's not on the mainstream, therefore he knows how to pick great roles. OVERRATED THE DARK KNIGHT? NOT AT ALL! IMO The Dark Knight has set the bar for every superhero movie cause it passed a "superhero movie". the soundtrack, the photograpy, the actors, the screen-play, everything was above an average "superhero" movie.

however I have to agree that he only won the Oscar cause he is dead. on the other hand the Oscars don't mean nothing, they are just like the Grammys.

 

[16mikeytot]

Looking back at The Dark Knight and I still love it. Dark Knight is definitely the best superhero movie ever. Y 2 Jake dude you've got to be kidding me when you say Iron Man was better than Dark Knight. Iron Man is pretty cool the first time you see it but when I watched it again I just found it pretty boring.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I must agree with my man PoonPoon69AllTheTime on this one.

While I did enjoy The Dark Knight, It wasn't even close to as good as Batman Begins, I feel everything about Batman Begins is better, it has less of that "Big Hollywood" feel to it, and the storyline was far more compelling. Plus I'm a bit of a Liam Neeson mark as well, and really enjoyed the confrontation between Ra's al ghul and Bruce Wayne/Batman. There's no denying that it was going to be a big time summer film, but Ledgers death definitely added to the films over hype.

 

[BOSS Productions]

I enjoyed The Dark Knight but the reason I watched it in the first place was because of all the hype. I will admit it is a well structured film but I think the general audience enjoys it because of Heath Ledger and could care less about anything else that happens in the film.

My friend dislikes this film because it does not follow the Jokers original story that was created in the comics , he also hated the fact that Batman had a possessed voice, which quite frankly I found annoying as well.

I personally thought The Dark Knight was better then Begins but I feel the original 1989 Batman film was the best out of all Batman films ever created mainly because that film is very simple and gets to the point , The Dark Knight left the minority of the audience confused with its in dept storyline.

In my opinion , Heath Ledger as the Joker is as great as everyone makes him out to be , he did an outstanding job portraying "The Joker" and created a fan base that rivals the original comic book Joker because of his performance in The Dark Knight. The film may be overrated but Heath Ledgers performance in the film surly deserves all the praise it gets.

When I first watched the film , it immediately became my favourite movie but since then it is just a "meh" kind of film. I was caught up in the hype at the time but I eventually realized how overrated the film was and now I don't really enjoy it as much as I did when I first watched it.

All in all.

Dark Knight : Overrated film

Heath Ledgers Performance: Not Overrated at all.

 

[Alex]

If you want a film to get universal praise, die before it's release, it really does tend to help.

Is Dark Knight a great film, yes, does it have great acting, yes, does it deserve all the hype and praise it gets, no.

The Dark Knight has a great story and a great cast of characters but there were several things wrong with it, minor ones such as Bale's throat cancer Batman voice and major ones like Two-Faces' introduction so late in the film (this felt like they were strapped for ideas) As well as the main plot bearing an uncanny resembelance to Speed (good guy trying to stop a homicidal maniac who get's into te heads of civilians)

But because Heath Ledger had died these problems were overlooked. They were also saying how Ledger's performance was brilliant and was better than Jack Nicholsons. Sorry it wasn't while Ledger played the homicidal maniac intent on bringing down Gotham, that's all he did, there was no variation in his character, it was the same from start to finish, whereas Nicholson was more balanced (being a maniac with humour etc)


Another thing was the god awful amount of merchandise being sold because of Ledger's Joker, t-shirts, hats, mugs, key rings, talk about milking something.

 

[Mantis]

My opinion on it is the same as it was in 2008: Outstanding Superhero film? Yes. Transcends the genre? No.

 

[I Suck Ass]

I think that it was a pretty good superhero film, and it had it's moments, but overall, it dragged. The plot was fairly thin, and besides Heath Ledger, the acting sucked.

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

Now I am gonna disagree with all of you and say the film was not overrated, just over-hyped. Heath Ledgers death really got the film into the main stream away from the casual super hero movie goer. But the soundtrack the twist whole film had no holes. As for the ending it was an excellent hook to the next film, I can not think of another super hero film that ended with the " Good guy" didn't win or have a happy ending. Nolan did a fantastic job making fans wanting more and with the new film set for 2012 it will allow them to complete the story of Bruce Wayn's path to truly becoming The Batman. These three films when completed may go down as one of the greatest trilogy's of all time.

 

[Kenny Powers]

The film received a lot of hype because of Ledger's death, but I really enjoyed the film. I didn't like Bale's overacting with him exaggerating his lines every second as Batman. I could really care less for Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel too. Aaron Eckhart played a great 2 face along with Ledger as The Joker. The way the Joker was meant to be played. I really don't understand the fascination with Batman Begins though. I really thought the movie was boring and I just got lost it in it. The Scarecrow is a pretty weak villain in my opinion too.

I enjoyed the original Iron Man, but I think it is even more overrated than The Dark Knight. Overall I haven't seen a super hero movie as dark or as dramatic as The Dark Knight. I really think it is the best in the Batman series. Right up there with Tim Burton's Batman.

 

[jmt225]

When I first saw The Dark Knight, it lived up to my expectations and I was blown away just like everyone else was.

However, re-watching it a couple times since seeing it at the theater... it's not a movie I will randomly put on if it's on like I would Batman Begins. In hindsight, the Joker's scenes are the only ones that are worth seeing more than once. So, yes... I would certainly say Heath Ledger's Joker is as great as it's made out to be, but it's the only thing about the film that makes it any good, whereas Batman Begins is epic from start to finish.

Don't get me wrong, because of The Joker, I do love this movie. It's a strong 9/10 for me today, but overall... there are things about it that just don't hold up after you've seen it more than one time. Maggie Gyllenhaal for one is just unbearable to look at. And secondly, while Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, I ended up not giving a damn about the Harvey Dent character. He didn't interest me in the least bit, and half of the movie was revolved around him.

I think if Dent's role would have been trimmed down, and The Joker got some more screen time I would like the movie much more today... but because of that and Maggie Gyllenhaal, I do have to put it in the overrated category, since those things keep the movie from being perfect, when it's cited by many as a perfect movie.

 

[El Rev sXe]

When I first saw The Dark Knight, it lived up to my expectations and I was blown away just like everyone else was.

However, re-watching it a couple times since seeing it at the theater... it's not a movie I will randomly put on if it's on like I would Batman Begins. In hindsight, the Joker's scenes are the only ones that are worth seeing more than once. So, yes... I would certainly say Heath Ledger's Joker is as great as it's made out to be, but it's the only thing about the film that makes it any good, whereas Batman Begins is epic from start to finish.

Don't get me wrong, because of The Joker, I do love this movie. It's a strong 9/10 for me today, but overall... there are things about it that just don't hold up after you've seen it more than one time. Maggie Gyllenhaal for one is just unbearable to look at. And secondly, while Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, I ended up not giving a damn about the Harvey Dent character. He didn't interest me in the least bit, and half of the movie was revolved around him.

I think if Dent's role would have been trimmed down, and The Joker got some more screen time I would like the movie much more today... but because of that and Maggie Gyllenhaal, I do have to put it in the overrated category, since those things keep the movie from being perfect, when it's cited by many as a perfect movie.

got a question for you there jmt225: Katie Holmes was a better Rachel? a couple of people said that Batman Begins was epic from start to finish but seriously, misse's Dawson's Creek is better? IMO that's what ruined Batman Begins. oh wel...

 

[jmt225]

got a question for you there jmt225: Katie Holmes was a better Rachel? a couple of people said that Batman Begins was epic from start to finish but seriously, misse's Dawson's Creek is better? IMO that's what ruined Batman Begins. oh wel...

She was LOADS better.

Listen, the people who didn't like Katie's performance just don't understand the Rachel character. Rachel is a tough broad, and that's how Katie played her (and you mention Dawson's Creek, her Joey character on that show was very much the same away). She played sort of a bitchy character who stayed on Bruce's case. The reviews I've read about Katie's performance that were negative all said that she was the most "unlikable good guy" character in the film. Well... what the fuck did people exact? She was supposed to be. No one wants to see their hero get continuously bitched at by a woman, but that was her role and she did a damn good job. It wasn't her job to kiss Batman's ass like Alfred and Morgan Freeman's character; it was her job to keep him in line and that's exactly what she did.

Now, Maggie's Rachel was different in every possible way. She was Miss Supportive and always said the right thing. However, when it comes to playing a 'Damsel in Distress,' (which was the only requirement in this film for Rachel to play). Katie was and will always be ten times better at it than Maggie. That's why Katie would have been better for the role. She knows how to sell really well, whereas Maggie, it's hard to give a fuck about her because her facial expressions and her voice... they're just fucking hideous, sorry. It's a completely different story with Katie Holmes.

Maggie's a good actress, don't get me wrong, but she's good for certain roles. No one can buy her as the woman Batman falls head-over-heels in love with. It just doesn't make sense. However, Holmes in the first film... I mean, she was a beautiful, strong, powerful woman. She was perfect as Rachel.

And seriously, just to put the final nail in the coffin:

Spoiler

Honestly man, which person would you rather stare at during a 2 and a half hour film?

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

I enjoyed The Dark Knight too. I remember all the hype on the internet, but since I am not a big TV watcher nor do I "gravitate" towards the more popular stuff (not on purpose), I couldn't get the hub hub.

So, when it came on HBO, I thought "What the hey, it's free and I can always change the channel."

No question about it, Ledger made that movie. Sure, it was a decent plot with amazing visuals, and a little Morgan Freeman never hurts.. But The Joker at the end of it was the only thing I really remember. Someone said Bale overracted? I disagree. I think he didn't have the "ooomph!" in his role like Ledger did. I know Batman is supposed to be but a shadow in the dark and all, but a lot of times I totally forgot that he was a main character. haha

Looking back, even though Bale looks like a great Batman (chick speaking here lol), they casted the wrong dude. Call me crazy if you must, but I personally think Brad Pitt would've been a MUCH better choice. Pitt was AMAZING in Se7en, which was a movie with the same mood and overall feeling for me.

Speaking of bad casting,

Maggie Gyllenhaal for one is just unbearable to look at.

ONE FUCKING THOUSAND PERCENT A-FUCKING-GREE! I just.. Ugh.. It was a pretty big role in the move, but why her? Are we suppose to believe that Dent and Batman are fighting over her? Seriously? The character itself wasn't even comforting or nice or inviting. Add someone who looks like that and you got a wasted role.


I wouldn't call it a perfect movie, but in the age of DVR.. I brought the DVD. I think that should say a lot to me.

 

[El Rev sXe]

She was LOADS better.

Listen, the people who didn't like Katie's performance just don't understand the Rachel character. Rachel is a tough broad, and that's how Katie played her (and you mention Dawson's Creek, her Joey character on that show was very much the same away). She played sort of a bitchy character who stayed on Bruce's case. The reviews I've read about Katie's performance that were negative all said that she was the most "unlikable good guy" character in the film. Well... what the fuck did people exact? She was supposed to be. No one wants to see their hero get continuously bitched at by a woman, but that was her role and she did a damn good job. It wasn't her job to kiss Batman's ass like Alfred and Morgan Freeman's character; it was her job to keep him in line and that's exactly what she did.

Now, Maggie's Rachel was different in every possible way. She was Miss Supportive and always said the right thing. However, when it comes to playing a 'Damsel in Distress,' (which was the only requirement in this film for Rachel to play). Katie was and will always be ten times better at it than Maggie. That's why Katie would have been better for the role. She knows how to sell really well, whereas Maggie, it's hard to give a fuck about her because her facial expressions and her voice... they're just fucking hideous, sorry. It's a completely different story with Katie Holmes.

Maggie's a good actress, don't get me wrong, but she's good for certain roles. No one can buy her as the woman Batman falls head-over-heels in love with. It just doesn't make sense. However, Holmes in the first film... I mean, she was a beautiful, strong, powerful woman. She was perfect as Rachel.

And seriously, just to put the final nail in the coffin:

Spoiler

Honestly man, which person would you rather stare at during a 2 and a half hour film?

Now you are talking man! LMAO with the pics. you do have great, great points indeed. I didn't saw the Rachel character that way. so yes, Rachel of Batman Begins is not at all the same Rachel of The Dark Knight. they are completely different characters. in some way I have to say that's due to the fact that both actress brought differents perspectives for Rachel.

now, it hurts me but it's true...the looks of Maggie and Katie. it's pretty darn obvious who would pick Batman!

I still disagree about Katie. I mean I can see the strong woman, but no portrayed by Katie Holmes. you mentioned Dawson's Creek, but I don't watch shows about highschool and teenagers (god I hate MTV/POP/TEENAGER-TV).

well I've got one more question for ya', as I said before you've got good points, valid points indeed, but then why Katie was taken off the shooting for The Dark Knight and why her character was replaced by Maggie with basically another completely different Rachel?

PS: not being sarcastic, I actually kinda agree with you now... there are just some doubts still in my mind .

 

[Uncle Sam]

I was planning on watching the movie even before Heath Ledger died. Weird, I know. It's a solid four star effort. I'm sure there were a few films as good as or better than it that year. Iron Man comes to mind, though the whole Obidiah Stane thing and the final fight sequence are pretty shit.

The things that stopped it from being a five star film:

• The boat scenes. Apparently paying actors would have been too costly and so Nolan picked up randoms off the street. OH NOES, the black man has the detanator! Surely, he'll kill every-- OH, HE THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW! Chris Nolan, you stereotype inverter, you. You didn't only break the mold, you got your dick out and fucked the pieces. INNOVATOR. Would've been much better if the civilians had blown up the criminals now, wouldn't it? I guess he was too busy desperately gluing the mould back together.
• The kids in their car thinking they've blown up all the other cars. You make cold, heartless movies, Chris. That's fine. That's your schtick. Throwing in something that even Michael Bay would have second thoughts about doesn't make your movie funny - it just drains tension from an otherwise cool action scene.
• Maggie Gylenhaal and the horrible rubber prosthetic that she wore over her face. Wait, that was her face? Burn it! Send it to hell! Oh, you did. Awesome. What's that, Joker? "And you are beautiful." The Nolans always know how to establish a character as batshit insane.
• The resolution of The Joker was unsatisfactory. Personally, I'd have just cut the bit where Batman catches him and have him hit the pavement - but I'm just sick in the head like that. Didn't give so much mercy to Jack Nicholson, did ya Batcunt?
• Harvey Dent's resolution was unsatisfactory. Furthermore, it flew in the face of the movie's internal logic. Batman - world's greatest ninja, equipped with the world's most sophisticated technology. He takes out gangsters and SWAT teams at the same time as saving hostages from sniper bullets without even touching them. World's greatest stealth tacticia-- "Hey Harvey, I just thought I'd walk up to you while you were holding a young child hostage. Ouch, you shot me! That's it, I'm killing you."

As a whole, Christopher Nolan is probably one the world's most overrated directors. Fortunately for him, there's a ways to go before he outdoes Ridley Scott. He is Mr. Four Star; the maker of consistently good movies that will never be counted as a five star movie by anyone that's actually seen a five star movie. Inception was probably his best yet, but I thought of walking out during its first half (should have called it Exposition, right?) and, let's be honest, The Matrix did the same thing better.

Edit: Oh, and Batman Begins is every bit as good as The Dark Knight.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

The boat scenes. Apparently paying actors would have been too costly and so Nolan picked up randoms off the street. OH NOES, the black man has the detanator! Surely, he'll kill every-- OH, HE THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW!

Or it could be that Tommy "Tiny" Lister Jr. has a very imposing look compared to everyone else who was visable in the scene? Would you want that big sob staring at you going "push the button"?

Not everything is about race.

 

[The Doctor]

I loved The Dark Knight. I loved Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, I loved the darkness of the film, and I loved the drama and excitement the film gave me, as well as the surprises (Two Face's death).

However, it was in no way the best superhero film ever, nor even the best of the year. Jake hit the nail on the head when he said Iron Man was just as good. It was just as good, but in a totally different way. Iron Man was about awesomeness, whereas The Dark knight was about drama. But they're as equally good as each other.

I guess I could compare it to HBK/Taker II. Incredible at the time for its drama, but then you rewatch it and realize that, though it's very good, it's not the masterpiece you originally thought it was when you were swept up in the moment.

I still love Ledger's Joker, though. So creepy and psychotic.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Or it could be that Tommy "Tiny" Lister Jr. has a very imposing look compared to everyone else who was visable in the scene? Would you want that big sob staring at you going "push the button"?

Black is quicker to type than a list of other adjectives. Listing sucks. Listing is bad, tedious, boring and just generally negative. And now you've just made me waste the time I saved not typing out said list. Oh, I hope you're happy.

Now, people are saying it's not the best superhero movie ever. And to that I say this: listen here, buddy - you might be correct, you might not be. I am Uncle Sam, king of uncertainty.

If The Dark Knight isn't the greatest superhero movie of all-time, what is? The contenders, as I see it, are:

• X-Men 2
• Spider-Man 2
• Iron Man
• Superman (Christopher Reeves)
• Batman Begins (Again, every bit as good as TDK)
• Batman: Mask of the Phatasm

So, contrary to my previous point, it's quite obvious that The Dark Knight isn't the greatest superhero movie of all-time. How can it be when Mask of the Phatasm is?

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

On first viewing, which for many was two years ago when it first came out (two years? fuck me) it was outstanding. However, rewatch it now, and it simply an above average movie with an outstanding performance and a couple of outstanding set pieces. I do agree with many in this thread though, that Batman Begins was the better Batman film. I think that the story is very tight, and that Christopher Nolan did a better job with the film than a lot of directors would, however it is still a four star film. There have been better comic-book films in terms of character development and emotionally investing in the characters. And in terms of Batman not sounding like fucking Barry White.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I actually went to see TDK with the intention of ripping it to pieces because of how many things they got totally wrong in the film. Being a total Bat mark and The Joker being my favourite fictional character ever, i was ready to shit all over this.

I didn't give in to 'Dark Knight' hype, i'd already been swallowed up by Batman hype some 10 years earlier.

Before i go on let me address a couple of things some people have brought up......

1. Katie Holmes was a better Rachel Dawes............ There is no such fuckin' character in any other form of Batman EVER, so forget about it. Had they used Vicki Vale or Silver St. Cloud then fine, but instead they invented an entirely new character to pose as a love interest in a story that didn't even need one. Maggie G is uglier and a worse actress than Katie H, that's a fact, it doesn't need reiterating.

2. Christian Bale's 'Batman' voice........ What's wrong with it? You don't expect him to go out and use his typical Bruce Wayne voice do you? You don't expect dark, demonic figures to have well educated, rich kid voices do you?

Michael Keaton put on a 'Bat' voice.
Kevin Conroy, the voice of the animated Batman for nearly 20 years..... put on a 'Bat' voice.
Val Kilmer did not.
George Clooney did not.
Christian Bale puts on the strongest 'Bat' voice that does the most to disguise his natural voice.

So basically, you're saying you want Batman to be more like he was in 'BF' and 'B+R', which are universally recognised as the worst Batman films ever, and are probably the sole reason why the franchise was re-booted in the first place. Is that what you're saying?

3. Those of you comparing this movie to other super hero movies....... TDK is a movie that focuses a lot on plot and not so much on drawn out action sequences. Just about every other superhero movie that's been mentioned so far in this thread has been the exact opposite. I personally HATE long action sequences and my interest is killed within seconds of it. Anyone see Star Wars Revenge of the Sith? I got so pissed off with watching them flip about all over the place swinging their damn lightsabers that i gave up caring well before Anakin went rogue. So, Iron Man, Spider Man, X Men, Daredevil and all the other MARVEL SHIT (there, i said it, sue me), were never going to appeal to me, A) because i hate the characters anyway, and B) they're filled with exactly what i don't want in my comic book movies.

I saw Spider Man 1 & 2. 1 was crap and 2 was better but not by a huge amount. 20 minutes of 3 was enough to put me off the franchise entirely.

I saw X- Men, and was bored shitless. I wouldn't hate X-Men so much if it was actually presented as 'X-Men' and not 'Wolverine plus some other ********s'.

Fantastic Four i enjoyed, despite the piss poor Dr Doom, but when i found out that Galactus was a cloud, ROTSS was never going to make any money off of me.

And the rest have never seemed worth the time of day imo, but that's just me. I'll definitely go and see Captain America when it comes out, but the rest can rot in a dank film studio for eternity for all i care.

I'm also worried that GL will be filled with nothing but space fights and fuck all character development between Hal and Sinestro.... (did you know this movie doesn't even have Kilowog in it?)

Anyway.....

Is TDK overrated? Yeah, it is. It's not as good as people make it out to be, and personally i can't remember the last time i gave it any serious consideration as a means to pass the time (i've been watching fuck loads of JLU instead lately, lol), but i do still think it rates as one of the top 3 Superhero movies of all time. Just the way they deal with Bruce himself is 100% perfect. Ok, Dent died, Dawes died (and should never have existed), Alfred's nowhere near posh enough, Fox should NOT know he's Batman and Gordon sure as fuck didn't become Commissioner by pretending to be dead either, but Bruce was spot on.

The fact that he goes all the way to China just to get one man to give evidence to stop the mod for a couple of days is exactly the sort of extremes Bruce Wayne goes to in the comics. In the books he'll happily kidnap Lex Luthor out of his private jet while it's in mid-flight, so when he went and retrieved Lau, i marked out a fair bit.

When he walks in the nightclub while it's open and smashes his way through anyone between him and where Maroni is sitting? Again, classic Bats. Whether you work for the guy, or you're a criminal or not, if you're in the way of the Batman's target, you fucked!

When he throws Maroni off the roof, again, classic Bats. Any torture is acceptable as long as the victim survives.

Trying to talk Dent down from killing the Gordon's? Someone complained about this earlier as well i notice, but what did you expect? That Bats was going to just swoop in, grab Dent and then pummel him? Of course not, as far as Bats is concerned, they're still on the same side. He has no idea JUST how far over the edge Dent has gone and he tries to plead with Harvey not to cross the line, but it's far too late, plus Bats knows he's not going to get killed, that's why he wears the armour!

All in all, TDK is the perfect Batman film, and ranks very highly (imo) amongst past superhero movies, but i do have to agree, it is overrated.

Oh, and apparently Dent killed at least 5 people before being killed at the end of the film. He kills the crooked cop that sold him out, he kills Maroni and his driver, and 2 other people who you never see. Now Gordon mentions that at least 2 of them were cops. Considering he may not know about the crooked cop (who was off duty at the time), the two cops he refers to could be the ones guarding the Gordons just before Dent abducts them. Or he could be assuming that he killed Ramirez purely because she hadn't radioed in for a while, unnaware that she's simply been knocked out. Either way that still leaves out some unknown person who was killed by Dent for some reason, unless the 5th was Dent himself. Gordon never says 'Dent killed 5 people', he simply says '5 dead, 2 of them cops.' So, can't tell for sure.