I also went and saw it yesterday, and my opinion is pretty close to yours - very good movie, but not great.

In fact, in many ways, I still like Batman Begins (which I think is far better than any of the Spiderman movies) better than The Dark Knight. Why? Because, other than Ledger's brilliant Joker, most of the returning characters in this movie (Batman, Dawes, Fox, Gordon) were less interesting to me than they were in BB when they were fresh and new. Of the returning characters, only Michael Caine's Alfred seems to hold up favorably to the first picture.

I get this movie is darker and is a second act in a likely three (or more) act play. The characters have to move forward and find more conflict, and the themes have to remain largely consistent from the first movie.

But for me personally, the backstories and character development of the first movie (including the introduction of the brilliant original score and cinematagraphy) were more interesting than the second acts conflicts and moral dilemmas.

Which I guess is also why I still like Fellowship of the Ring more than The Two Towers, the first Spiderman more than the second one, and Batman Begins over The Dark Knight.

Hmm. See, I actually thought all the minor characters, with the exception of Rachel Dawes, were more interesting this time around then last. Gordon, Alfred, Lucious all seemed to have more to do and more characterization to inhabit. At least to me.

Anybody else catch the war on terror stuff:
wiretapping
torture
making terrorist desperate by squashing them?
one person willing to be hated in order to protect
Harvey Dent = Obama?

Or maybe it was just me. :-)

Man, I may have to run out and see this thing. Maybe another shot of vodka will help me forget I read this exciting post.

Thanks, Jared.

Now I have to go see it.

The more I read about the movie the more I really do believe that part of Brant's dislike for the movie had to be colored by the fact that a 3 year old was in the theater as well. I know that I would watch every second of the movie with that kid in mind and be horrified at what their young mind and eyes were taking in.

And I guess I just did a full-on review. Sorry, Phil.

I just pulled out my "Batman Handbook" and reread the section entitled "how to win a sword fight". You might need to read the one before that. "How to Take A Kick to the Head"

Seriously though, I'm glad you wrote on it. I was pretty interested in your thoughts. I totally agree with you about the boat scene. And like you I saw quite a few Christian themes that are actually there.

As far as the War on Terrorism part...Yup. Got that too. No way was that accidental. (Except for your Harvey Dent = Obama point. I still don't see that.) But the rest, totally.

I'd be interested to see what Nolan does after this. He followed Batman Begins up with Prestige. With the biggest opening weekend ever, and it being on track to become one of the highest grossing movies ever, I would think that he would have a black check to do what he wants. (Like the one James Cameron had and squandered)

"I'd be interested to see what Nolan does after this."

I just read an article online that says this:

The only project he's currently signed on to direct -- beyond the possible next Batman installment, in which he would be in a position of trying to top himself -- is an adaptation of the 1960's British secret-agent series "The Prisoner" for Universal.

Harvey = Obama

The great political hope, a charismatic politician/celebrity campaigning on change, etc.

I think the message with that whole thing is a warning to the Obama cult that nobody is incorruptible. :-)

I've wondered if anyone would pick up The Prisoner again. I enjoyed the shows, but I'd think the modern adaptation would go the wrong direction. I guess I shouldn't assume they will ruin everything.

First, I pretty much agree with Phil and Jared. (I'm man enough to admit my bias when I consider this the best movie EVER.)
"Anybody else catch the war on terror stuff:
wiretapping
torture
making terrorist desperate by squashing them?
one person willing to be hated in order to protect
Harvey Dent = Obama? "
In retrospect:
Must have missed it somewhat.
Kinda...
Yeah, I can see that.
I wonder who you're trying to draw comparisons to here...;)
Eh, maybe. I like Dent better, in some ways. But it's a sobering thought. (Resists urges to rant about Obamessiah).
As for Nolan topping himself; I think he can. In my eyes, he did from Begins to this movie.
Also, nobody besides Batman is incorruptible, Jared. ;-) Got to remember your perspective.

at times the Joker seemed almost too smart, borderline clairvoyant, but i guess that what makes him a good foe for the Batman...

Maybe Joker was a chess player...

Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do
(G.K.Chesterton)

;-)

Maybe it was a playbook for Republicans on how to stop Obama. Douse him with oil, burn his face...McCain wins. I wouldn't put it past some of them.

No, Jared, I am officially the last person on the planet not to have seen the film.

Actually, that would be me, Matt.

This is your grandmother speaking. The one who has herself (in a former life) been beaten up, threatened with guns and knives, and who flinches yet, twenty-five years later, at violence knowing full well its deadliness to the soul. I'm the grandmother who loves Col. 1:13 and Romans 8:28-39 and Romans 5 and John and Ephesians and, and, and. I first read Phil's review and I thought, "You have got to be kidding!" But I'm always open to the idea that my thinking may indeed be wrong. So I went to the movie tonight and I have to say, "Sorry, Guys, I walked out in the middle." This is one ugly film.
Jared said this movie made some good Christian points. Oh, Really!! I am surely hoping that all the children seated in the theater in front of me saw clearly some redemptive theme. Some of those children I know and they already have a father in prison or are living in homes where Dad beats Mom or where one or both parents have a drug or alcohol problem. I'm really, really hoping they saw past the gratuitous (yes, I said gratuitous) ugly violence and saw clearly all those fine Christian points you mentioned.
Frankly, if my pastor stood up on Sunday morning and recommended this movie, I'd have to change churches.
And thanks for the point to Brant Hansen's review. It was refreshing to see that I do not stand alone.

If you know domestic abuse is going on, why haven't you reported it?

For Andrew...
"father in prison"...that one I know to be true.
"dad beats mom or drug/alcohol problem"...I know only that the family lives in chaos. My point was that the children do not have parents who can sit down with them afterwards and say, "Oh, by the way, did you notice the Christian points in this movie...that this movie is about good and evil...did you see the lesson there?" (As if this would nullify the images in their young heads.) For one thing, many were there without their parents. The movie is PG-13, remember? Lots and lots of under-13 kids there without parents. But, oh, this movie will surely redeem itself with its goodness and its great art and its wonderful acting!!

Whitestone:
Portraying sin in art is bad. Gotcha.

Stupid parenting is my fault or the fault of the film. Gotcha.

Thank you for your gracious comments.

Yeah, people seem to be taking commentary on this movie really...personally.

I watched it. I liked it. I don't like violence against kids, or theaters letting kids in under the age limit.

What Doug said.

I saw it last night - at IMAX. On the front row (as it was a full theater). So saying I "saw" it is a bit of a stretch. I saw parts of it, swirling all around me, basically.

Very well made movie. Had a thoughtful message. Had lots of violence.

And, naturally, some little kid was sitting next to me. He was probably about 7. But I just put that thought out of my head, as there was nothing I could do about it.

I enjoyed it and want to see it again.

Just got back from the IMAX and think that the film is simply incredible. I'm not gushing - it isn't a masterpiece and shouldn't be considred as Best Picture material as I've heard some suggest. Still, it probably is better than any other super-hero movie I can think of.

I would accept Best Supporting nomination for Heath and would for Harvey Dent - his performance may have been overlooked - but Ledger will get all of the pub, natch. The script was pretty tight for a comic-book movie and I think I may accept just about anything Nolan throws at me - writer or director. I've never seen him make a bad film (although I thought the ending of Insomnia was L-A-M-E lame).

I agree 100% with Jared's review. (and all those who have taken issue with any parent bringing their child to see the film - not for the children).

Okay, it's been almost two days since I saw it and this movie is growing on me the more I think about it.

Has that ever happened to you? You see a film and you feel about it a certain way, but over time that changes (for either the better or worse)?

The more I think about Batman, the more impressed I am with the story, directing, writing, acting and everything else. I really, really liked this movie.

I was looking at BoxOfficeMojo.com and this thing is breaking records at a ridiculous clip. It's not just breaking records, it's smashing them.

Today, it hit $300 million. That's ten days. The next soonest time a film hit $300 million (Pirates: Dead Man's Chest) was 16 days. This got there nearly a whole week sooner.

I know it's early, but if this continues, we could be seeing an approximation of what Titanic did - it's already over half way there in a week and a half.

Obviously, there will be a precipitous drop in revenue as time goes on and other big films are released, such as the third mummy movie. Still, I think this thing's legs are still moving.

I might re-think my position on it not being worthy of a Best Picture nom.

It's still growing on me as well. Great movie.

I never can make heads or tails sense of how/why the Academy nominates certain films for best picture. I'm too much of a rube to have seen most of the nominees. But I think this one has a shot.

What made this film work as well as it did was Heath Ledger.

[It just dawned on Bill that he and Quaid agree on a movie . . .]

.
.
.
.
.

[Catatonia . . . ]

I knew it.

I've been out of the country on a mission trip, so I haven't seen it......plan to this weekend. Can my 14 year old son see it? He's a super hero geek.

nhe,
We can't tell you dude! What if we're wrong?

You're the parent. That said, in my opinion, I think it depends on the teenager. Most modern day 14 year olds won't even blink because they also watch the Hostel and Saw movies. So I think it depends on your kid. Please look at what I said in my review. The Joker does some EVIL things, but most of it is just off camera.

If you're really concerned you could go read the review at pluggedinonline.com It details every potentially offensive item. Of course, that could spoil the plot for you....

I suspect that if you kept your 14 yr old son from seeing it that he'll be harassed in school... :)

Does your son read comics? If he's read any of the Batman graphic novels like "Year One", "Dark Knight Returns" or "Killing Joke", he's probably mentally prepared for it. (Or should I say "desensitized"?)

My biggest concern is for the 10 and under set. I mean, people are bringing 5 and 7 year olds to this!!!!! That's just cruel.

thanks Shrode - wasn't asking to be told what to do, sorry for sounding like that. My 16 year-old daughter has seen Saw and loves the moral dilemmas in it (I hated it). She'll probably appreciate Dark Knight more, but I'll take them both.

Regarding Whitestone's comments......isn't this all just boiling down to how we interpret Phil 4:8 with regard to movies?

For me, stories that are lovely, honorable and praiseworthy are stories that have redemptive themes that shine bright against a dark landscape. Movies like Shawshank Redemption and Glory are good examples. I'm guessing from what I'm reading that Dark Knight fits this (to a lesser degree).

For others, praiseworthy content pretty much has to be of the "G" variety. That's ok - I think that's all Whitestone is trying to say. However, to Jared's point - she really should see more than one viewpoint on this.

According to Box Office Mojo, Batman beat the Mummy movie this weekend. I think this is pretty relevatory regarding a few things:

1. It's a testament to how good The Dark Knight is. A film does not go number one three weeks in a row, defeating a traditionally number one series in the process, unless it has great word-of-mouth marketing. I find it interesting that Mummy beat Batman on Friday, but Saturday and Sunday, it fell behind. This data shows the power of word-of-mouth.

Mummy had 20% more tickets sold on Friday, but seemingly fell apart in one day's time. While most films' revenues increase from Friday to Saturday, Mummy fell down. The Mummy's inability to woo critics (9% on Rotten Tomatoes) and movie-goers proved to be its downfall. The Dark Knight, however, rolls on.

2. Batman will seriously contend for largest revenue of all time with Titanic. In 25 or 26 days, Batman will have grossed $400 million. This is a full two weeks before the nearest film on the list reaching $400 million (Shrek 2 at 40 days).

There are no other blockbuster movies opening in the next couple of months. I believe that this will translate into a great percentage of ticket sales (if not the greatest) will go to The Dark Knight until High School Musical Three comes out at the end of October. If the revenue continues to roll in at number-one levels, it nearly guarantees that Batman will exceed 450 million and, probably, half a billion dollars.

3. Batman will contend for Academy Awards. While Oscar often ignores box office smash hits (Spidermans, Star Wars, Pirates), I'm not certain you can ignore this. You can't ignore a film that captures the attention of an entire country and world as this has. You can neither ignore Heath Ledger's performance, nor Nolan's incredible directing/writing. Titanic won Best Picture after grossing half a billion (it went on to earn $600 million, domestic). I think if Batman hits $500 million, it has to be, at least, nominated. I also believe that the film will enter into many critics' "Top 10" lists.

Just some thoughts after Batman's third weekend at number one.