Let's be realistic.

Rating: 5/10 (22 July 2008)

I settled on a 5/10 for The Dark Knight. I appreciated the story structure and all the notes they hit... I just don't think they played them loudly. I don't like re-casting, and the replacement of Katie Holmes/Rachel and the original Barbara Gordon actress (yes, her too, didya notice?) is awkward and distracting. The lack of ANY blood in the film to complement the multitude of beatings and killings (to sustain a PG-13 rating) nullifies the tension that should be present in some brilliantly conceived scenarios. I didn't believe for a second that the victims of several hostage situations (mass or otherwise) would actually lose their lives, because it's blisteringly apparent from the onset that this film is a PG-13, and would never disturb its audience beyond the minimum necessary plot points.
The Joker is actually underwritten. Ledger was game and his performance solid, but honestly: Throw the makeup and stringy hair on 75% of capable actors out there, and you have the same product. I think Jack Nicholson's output is ultimately more interesting, and I think that Tim Burton's original film, although imperfect, is still the most entertaining in the pantheon.
I realize that to hardcore Batman fans, this is a wet dream having the grittiness of the graphic novels transposed to the big screen (if they say so; I say it came close), but riddle me this: If the same script was fashioned into a non-superhero flick, let's say Heat II, and had the same strong performances and production values, would the lack of Batman fan loyalty still rocket it to its current position on the IMDb Top 250?