The Dark Knight

have you been living under a rock man? did you even see batman begins? grim, dark, bleak, brooding, disturbing is what nolan and co. were going for...you must have been a fan of batman forever

This, of the critics that didn't seem to fully enjoy this film, is the most justified in it's reasoning, and I thank you for it... but personally, I enjoyed the film (having seen it July 15 at a special showing for fans), and while I admit i bias towards liking it due to the subject material, I feel that the complaint that it's overly dark and dreary is not entirely accurate. I saw, in the film, a sort of pressured hope all through it. Things are grim for Gotham now, but almost all parties involved see the potential for a greater future, and that future is worked towards. Besides this... it's a masterfully put together film. Depressing it may be, I don't think people should miss out on seeing it.

Reading your review, I had imagined that you would give it a 3.5/5 or at the very least a 3/5. The review really does not go with the rating you gave it. The way it seems to me is that you enjoyed the film, but want to be controversial by giving it a low rating. Try to be honest next time, instead of thinking about what you could write that could get you the most pageviews.

Never have I been more annoyed with a publications film reviews. There is one sentence in this review that illustrates the pretentious smugness of everyone working at the Chronicle..."It's jam-packed with flawlessly designed set-pieces and skullduggery, sure, but it's also shrouded in grim portent, overlaid with a filigree of despair, and, for good measure, covered in a patina of dire consequence." Give me a break! Maybe if you put down your thesaurus and actually watch the films you so eagerly dismiss, your readers would get to read a review where the movie gets higher than 2 1/2 stars.

What is this? You expect us to actually READ that huge block of words?

I cant believe you get PAID to write this.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

ye olde wall o text, i shall not be reading you.

Too dark? Do us all a favor, yeah? Read Batman from the 60's. Campiness and all. Then read Dark Knight Returns, and Batman: Year One. Batman is supposed to be dark and full of despair. Leave the sunshine and hope to Metropolis.

This review is jam-packed with unnecessary words, structured in a pretentious way, and is a patina of verbose.

When people are wrong, they typically use words that scare off people in order to assert dominance.

Marc (even his name is pretentious) is bad at reviewing movies. He must've expected less dark from a movie titled "The Dark Knight." I can't believe you have a job.

You sir, must be at least 5 points away from being mentally retarded.

You idiot. Read "The Killing Joke", the comic upon which The Dark Knight is based, and tell me that's not grim. Margorie Baumgarden would have done a better job, and she SUCKS.

I have to agree with not impressed's response. I can't speak of the smugness of the publication as a whole, but the sentence mentioned was galling (on a number of levels, nothing suggests a layer of menace like a filigree!), as were others, and as was the style of the entire article.

Within a few sentences I had a feeling "rictum" would be making an appearance.

I don't quite understand how Batman is operating under "nihilistic logic"?

I have no idea why this film was rated as it was except for the fact that it was gloomy, or "encrusted in the caliginous", and of course, lacking something intangible, which is a nice way of saying "I don't know I just didn't like it".

You hate the movie because it wasn't wrapped in a white shiny bow and made to look happy such as the likes of Superman. It's dark. Yes we understand that. But welcome to the 21st century where we live in terrorism. It's a theme of society. It's meant to convey a theme. Just as say a book does. Just you've been watered down with such crap for movies that you have to be force fed an idea on a plate that you can't think for yourself and draw a conclusion for yourself. It forces you to think. You writing a poor review of it shows you didn't take that into consideration. And put the "Word-a-Day" calendar away. It's a movie review not a thesis.

I already posted but I also wanted to say how distasteful it was to throw a Heath Ledger death conspiracy allusion of how this movie caused his death into this review. He does have a family and friends who probably still mourn about his passing and it probably is a hard time for them. So Mr. "Skullduggery" feel high and mighty in review but know you have no class and even though you have every right to review the movie, remember that throwing conspiracies about someone's ACTUAL death is not your right as a critic. Hopefully no one kicks over your headstone when your six feet under.

For what it's worth, the chronicle's reviews always suck.

you are an idiot. i suggest before putting your opinions in print, or ranking a film with the seemingly arbitrary system of stars you adhere to, you check out some other reviews done by professional critics. you always seem to gush over shit, and underrate the gold. sit and spin.

In spite of this, after reading the other re-poster's post, I was moved, if not inspired. Once Savlov's headstone is in fact knocked over, and covered in a patina of it's own, I would find revelry in micturating upon its tarnished surface.

Ledger gave one of the truly great performances by any actor of any generation. It's anguishing to realize that this is the last we'll see of this Titan of an actor. That said, the film is a bit bloated. Still, the presence of Ledger haunts this movie and his performance will be admired for generations.

I though movie critics liked depressing, dark and brooding movies with good acting....Oh - I forgot - only if they are foreign films or make no money at the box office. Always a few troll-baiting critics out there to besmirch a blockbuster that is actually a GOOD movie. Oh well - typical Austin hippie/artistic snob who can appreciate art that is also popular.

I think it's fine that you didn't like the movie -- it certainly qualifies as a much more "dire" film compared to its predecessors.

But what I don't like is your tone: "Being Batman is a drag. One day there are nipples on your body armor, the next, zero superfluous papillaries. And that cowl! No peripheral vision. Hello?"

Think you could adopt a more professional writing style? I understand -- it's funny because the movie was, like, so dark and stuff and we should all just, like, lighten up. It'd just be helpful in taking your opinion more seriously if you didn't start with something like that and then work your way up to "filigree of despair" mid-review.

Give it some thought. I'll even watch "Batman Forever" with you if it helps.

... if this movie was exactly the same yet directed by Kevin Smith, it would have received 4 stars.

I'MMA kick over your headstone when you're six feet under, you wise and insightful fucker, you.

Also, I've got to stay away from these comment areas from now on, dontcha know? Damned things are overrun with the functionally illiterate and the droolingly neurotypical and after a few minutes oh my it's hell of depressing to read.

Best regards to Mogwai ...

Marc, sir, you are pretentious hack and the editors of the chronicle should reassign you to the mail room. Your reviews blow, plus your credibility is shot. You have the balls to give a steaming turd of a movie like the original Hellboy 4.5 stars, simply because you are kissing Del Toro's ass, but write this ridiculous review about a movie you hated for all the wrong reasons. I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty excited about it, for exactly all the reasons you said you hated it. You're actually comparing Nolan's films to the so-campy-its-satirical TV show, and this joker to Cesar Romeros? And on top of that you dare do it with that absolutely flamboyant writing I'm sure you pride yourself in calling prose? Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. It's time to get another job.

I agree. Marc just needs to be put out to pasture. His time has come and gone. I wish the Chron would take the overwheming dissaproval of Marc's reviews and fire him. Nobody likes him,his reviews are biased and full of shit. Everyone knows it, he is a pretentious little fagwad that needs to be let go and some newer more objective movie reviewers need to be placed in his stead.

irony

Thank the movie Gods that someone local had the good sense to call this pile of dreck a pile of dreck. Outside of Ledger's performance, there isn't a worthwhile thing in it. It's long and it's boring, mostly because it never sits still, but also because it has no story. I saw it with four other people, and after it was over, I asked them if anyone could tell me what the story was -- and none of them could!

ALL OF YOU

Stay in your theater seats and watch your glorious movie a 2nd or a 3rd time instead of wasting your precious time on your laptop panning a review(?) and blurting out personal attacks on someone who works hard to give his honest opinion.

Really? You are attacking Marc for having a creative mind and giant vocabulary (and a "pretentious name"??)? We should each have half his grasp of the English language.

And I'm sorry to have to tell you this... but it is a MOVIE.

If you are already predestined to love it anyway, why read the review?

Please spend your energy attacking corporations and wars and polluters - things that actually hurt someone.

"It's jam-packed with flawlessly designed set-pieces and skullduggery, sure, but it's also shrouded in grim portent, overlaid with a filigree of despair, and, for good measure, covered in a patina of dire consequence." Does that mean it's awesome?

For some reason when i was reading your review it sounded like you fully enjoyed the movie but for some reason refuse to give it a decent rating. This movie is by far the most complete of all Batman movies. With an amazingly complicated character performance given by Ledger this movie is hard to be seen as average. But yes, Batman does complain in the film but that is just another way of showing the troubles he deals with on a daily basis. With these in mind and the overall perfection by director Christopher Nolan this movie is one to thrill those willing to fully emerge themselves into the film.

You may think giving bad reviews to action/thrillers movies makes you look like an intellectual guy but it only makes you look like a person with low self esteem who wants to be noticed for being controversial . You sir should be prohibited from reviewing movies.

Hands down, this is the dumbest review on The Dark Knight I have read so far.

[paragraph]

Batman IS A DARK STORY. DARK, DARK, DARK, DARK. NO LIGHT HERE. BAD PEOPLE, NASTY SITUATIONS, GRUESOME VILLIANS. DARK, DARK, DARK, DARK, DARK. Hence the the name: The DARK Knight.

[paragraph]

Marc, or may I call you, Thesaurus Boy, if you don't like dark stories, then stop reviewing them. I noticed that your 4 star review of Wall-E only took 3 short paragraphs, Indiana Jones, a FAT 3 1/2 stars for a tremendously flawed, albeit enjoyable film, about the same length as your Wall-E review.

[paragraph]

Ever notice that when you're having difficulty making a point that things start getting overly wordy and lengthy? I think this is exactly what happened to your Dark Knight review.

[paragraph]

Oddly enough, Pulitzer Prize winner, Roger Ebert, wrote a very accurate and well defended review giving Dark Knight a MUCH DESERVED 4 star rating. You should read it. Maybe you can pick up some ideas on how to argue points and write to a general audience.

the man who gave Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a good review? That was possibly one of the biggest flushing of a franchise down the toilet in history. I don't know anyone who didn't hate that movie. Dark Knight was phenomenal. Your review was over in the 2nd sentence when you mentioned nipples on the bat-suit. Longing for days of old, are we?

Fpig. I'm sorry to tell you this, but these are just COMMENTS! Please spend your energy in more a useful way, like on things you can't change, or perhaps hectoring people who don't care.

Also, packing a thesaurus doesn't deem one's vocabulary "giant", nor does this turgid mess constitute a firm grasp of the english language, let alone a coherent review.

guest said... I saw the movie and thought it was just another horror film, popular because of the ominousness of Heath. I actually felt very strange watching him, as if he was channeling evil.

Reading the reviews it becomes obvious where people are coming from, indoctrinated by the mass hallucination of pop nihilism. It was quite sad to see eleven year olds at this film.

...for this reviewer. I'm sure if Linklater's name was attached or of it came from Troublemaker Studios Savlov would have wet himself to rave about how brilliant it was.

The Movie was as the 4 star rating says, "Slightly flawed but excellent nonetheless." Ledgers performance blew me away and i hope he gets an honorary Oscar for this role. Great performances all around. Bale, Echart, Oldman,Gyllenhaal, even Caine and Freeman(though their contributions were sidelined a bit). What saddens me is that someone is going to have to step into the role of the Joker to replace Ledger(and i dont think anyone could pull off what ledger was able to in this role) im sure that when the 3rd installment of the Dark Knight comes out, it will not dissapoint. Well not all Im sure Marc here will have something pretentious and typical to state and give it a bad review with 2 stars just to get us all riled up. I really think he wrote what he wrote because of that very thing. Here is a tip to all the spectators out there. Dont feed the internet Trolls, even if those trolls happen to be popular local critics.

I think he's been living under a dictionary!

Good review. I really wonder what the effect of these kinds of high-anxiety films is. And what was up with the "two ferry-boats full of people" sequence?

Yechhh.

Did you have your SAT word dictionary handy when you wrote this review? Your big words can't hide the fact that you gave an excellent film a negative rating just so you could stand apart from the crowd. The film is certainly dark, but in that sense, it remains true to the source material (that being the comics, NOT the old TV show.) I wouldn't describe the film as depressing, however . . . ultimately, the good guys do win, albeit through sacrifice and loss, which was what made the film so satisfying. Maybe you should check out Sex and the City if you want something more uplifting.

So I suppose that if it was not a superhero movie and instead a gay cowboy movie you will give it 4 stars? I'm just happy that my money is not wasted for reviews like this . But Marc .... you really don't know anything about Batman .Maybe you should go and rewatch Batman and Robin before you see Dark Knight.

Is reviews like this that embaress me for Austin to have a liberal paper that only gives full approval to movies with liberal views .But should anybody be surprise by Marc anymore ? ? this comes from someone who watches indie movies and dismisses anything that's not in the same category

Here are 2 movies he thought were better than The Dark Knight:

American Pie 2

Beavis & Butthead Do America

I will now refer all readers of this post to my headline

I looked up "pretentious douchebag" in my magic thesaurus, and "Savlov" came up as a match.

Well, I guess that explains it.

the review itself was wordy, but accurate and generally well-written... that being said, why the low star rating?? based on the tone of your review it seemed like you could have given this movie 3.5 or 4 stars easy.. so, now I must refer you to the post somewhere above me headlined "Credibility".

I was excited to see this movie. Bought in all the hype. And ignored the Chronicle review.

However, I have to say... I had a hard time staying awake. I drifted off a few times and had pretty much the same impression of the film that Mark did.

So many seem to REALLY like this movie, so I will likely see it again to make sure I didn't just miss something really important. But for the estimated 70% of the movie I did see... I was really kinda bored.

And what was so stellar about Ledger's performance anyway? I didn't find him particularly creepy or all that psychotic. He was merely amusing at best.

drop the thesaurus. you're not impressing anyone you pompous prick.

Both got 2.5 stars.

Both reviewed by Marc Savlov.

/w\ horns down

Savlov is an insecure person; he is angry because he is at the bottom of the stack as far as literary accomplisments. Nobody would buy his books, so instead he sits and does crappy movie reviews and takes his anger out on us. In a recent review, he wrote one sentence that contained 92 words and eleven hyphens. I showed this to a professional copy editor and she laughed for 5 minutes. Her only comment "this guy is pathetic". Savlov uses complex, obtuse words that mean nothing to the normal person, and serves only to confuse.

Savlov, please go write your novel and leave us the fuck alone.

It's a great shame that reviews like this actually get counted towards Dark Knight's metacritic score. It isn't the movie's fault that you're clearly not intelligent enough to actaully understand the complexity of the movie. Honestly, how people like you get a job as a movie critic when there are far more talented people who actually know what they're talking about is beyond me. I certainly won't be looking for reviews from you in the future, that's for sure.

I don't think you should critique movies that you don't know anything about. and i think you where the same guy who gave TWISTER five stars. I don't think you are to be trusted sir.

Mr. Savlov is an A$$ even in person, but even if that wasn't the case, his reviews in general suck royally.

BORING... YOUR REVIEW IS POMPOUS AND BORING... PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK FOR HOW MANY 4 SYLLABLE WORDS YOU CAN WRITE INTO YOUR REVIEW. 'THE DARK KNIGHT' IS A BEAUTIFUL FILM MEANT TO BE DARK. IT IS BEAUTIFULLY PLAYED BY THE CAST AND CAREFULLY WRITTEN. IT IS TENSE AND FULL OF ACTION. I LOVED IT ALTHOUGH I ONLY HAVE 1 FOUR SYLLABLE WORD IN THIS COMMENT.

Ok before you review a movie and shit all over it, try watching the movie first. Also you have very poor taste and class to mock Ledger's death.

I agree with the reviewer, and I'm a little startled by all the hatred directed at him. I don't agree with everyone who loved the movie, but I also don't think everyone who loved it is stupid or worthy of ridicule. Weird.

Anyway, I left this movie exhausted and bummed out. "Batman Begins" was dark and broody, but not completely hopeless. I far preferred it to this movie, which I found hopeless in its message. Everyone seems wasted in this movie because there's too much going on and the director is too in love with showcasing the Joker - Batman almost seems like a supporting character, Dent's character trajectory could be fascinating but goes by far too quickly, and the movie wastes the Rachel character (I'm in the minority who didn't mind Holmes in the role, but poor Maggie really isn't given enough to work with here and I felt bad for her). Ledger is brilliant and disturbing - in fact, difficult to watch. The movie as a whole is difficult to watch, but not in a good way - it tries to do too much, be too important and hammers away at its somber message way too hard.

And maybe this is morbid, but I totally understand why making this movie (reportedly) depressed Ledger - you come away feeling pretty hopeless. In the end, it almost feels like the Jokers of the world win even while the Batmans and Gordons of the world scramble about to fix the situation.

First off, Mark Savlov has quite a few good things to say about the film and then gives it a 2.5 (which is not to say that ratings are important - they are quite a juvenile concept).

In any case, the film is cohesive, well-acted, well-directed and layered. Even though the constantly happening explosions get a bit boring through the long film, it's got quite a few exciting scenes and it's truly a joy to see Heath Ledger give it his all.

I hardly think that the film's atmosphere should be compared with this "age of anxiety!" - I doubt if anyone really expects a Joker to show up in a largish US city.

This is a must-see film and the review doesn't make any sense. May I suggest Anthony Lane's review?

Such a douche bag.

This review is the most pretentious, bloated piece of crap I've ever read. Nevermind the writer's opinion, the writing is just god awful.

I just watched the movie last night and if I would have worn socks they'd have been blown off baby! Yeah I'm cheesy, but at least I'm not pretending to not have enjoyed the best movie of the year...the writer must have a dislike for anything having to do with the batman. Anybody who has a like for the caped-crusader will tell you that this is the BEST Batman movie ever. Ledger stole the show as Joker; it's sad we won't be able to see him play the role again. I can't wait to watch this a second time.

Oh! I wanna dogpile on Savlov too! Savlov- you are bald! And Thin! And sometimes disagree with me! What an ass! No seriously, you got a great ass.

the film is dark, and thus not worth seeing?

ok...

Hi Marc,

Bernice and I like movies. Since you don't like movies we were thinking to go for you and write real reviews. Lets us know it will save you some time and maybe a real review would be printed. Let us know. We actually like movies.

Thanks,

Shane

This review merely serves to highlight firstly the pretentiousness of the reviewer, and secondly the lack of understanding of Batman lore. Comments regarding the depiction of a grim reality sound like a complaint within the context of this review. I would call it a compliment on the context of a movie that gives one of the truest depictions of the Batman story as it was intended. Batman was never meant to be fluffy. It was always meant to have a depressing element. Batman is and always had been a very dark and complex carachter, at odds with his own existance as a hero, and anti-hero, and an angry man out for retribution. The grim overtones are conducive to the very existance of Batman. From reading this review, one can be brought to the assumption that the reviewer perhaps views the 60's TV show as the definitive Batman. Something that never was intended to be so. To the reviewer I say go back and read the publications that made Batman worthy of making into a film in the first place. From "year one" to "The Dark Knight Returns" to "Arkham Asylum". You just might understand what Batman is about and learn to appreciate the movie.

This review is wrong in so many ways it is difficult to know where to start. So why not start with with Marc's utter inability to connect with a common reading audience through his superfluous use of verbose language which seems only to attempt to compensate for a complete inability to relate to the genre of film being reviewed here. Pointing out the lack of nipples and peripheral in any context other than to remind the viewer of the fact that this is based on a comic/graphic novel shows how truly out of context this review is.

Perhaps for you it is "impossible to view Nolan's extravagantly dour (should it be anything else?) film through anything but the prism of Ledger's death", but that only serves to demonstrate how incapable you are of objectively critiquing a film. To characterize Ledger's performance as "convoluted" is dismissive at best when applied to a character written with such anarchistic and sociopathic traits.

Your critiquing of Bale's appearance and performance based primarily on differences between the first film and TDK completely dismisses the idea that perhaps the Dark Knight's character has evolved in those three years. Hardened and more callous? No, just a bad performance by an actor whose physique obviously threatens your self-image and perhaps sexual identity?

You go far out of your way to invent witty remarks that dismiss everything that makes this film what it is and should be, considering it's source, only to say that "There's something intangible missing", yet you do not even offer up a hint of what that something may be. This review is a blatant misuse of vocabulary which fails to deliver any insight into the subtext of this story and it's potent social and political commentary. I may be alone on this but if a film based on a graphic novel has either of the aforementioned qualities I am impressed. For it to do it as successfully as The Dark Knight has it deserves far more recognition than it was given.

Aren't people even allowed to have opinions anymore? Stop trying to pressure the critics into saying, "Oh, sorry, this is certainly a film classic." That defeats the entire point of critiquing. Please grow up. It's not the end of the world if five percent of people didn't get that same warm and fuzzy feeling you did while watching a movie.

How you can give Nothing Like the Holidays 3 stars and The Dark Knight only 2 and a half is beyond me. I saw the rating and thought maybe you had seen something I didn't a flaw anyone else missed but after reading this I'm left with the conclusion you just wanted to be different and bash what still has to be one of the greatest superhero movies of all time, because no one else was.