Once you are shallow, then Batman seems deep...

Rating: 2/10 (20 November 2012)

For all those who think, that it is The Masterpiece - it's not, not even close, here's why: 1) The only strong role was Joker. Acting of others was above average. But Ledger, in my opinion, deserves a huge credit for making his character so impressive and realistic. 2) Second half of the movie got boring, because of the action scenes that were made only for the sake of action. At some point I started to ask myself a question "Why". I didn't find an answer in the movie. 3) Story is quite acceptable, but those that claim Dark Knight to be an art are floating somewhere near the epicenter of Americas self-indulgent "culture", where grown people are still more interested in comics than real art.
It's a shame to see this movie near the top of IMDb 250. Even though I would like to write 3 or 4 for it, I decided to give those extra minus points in the name of some disoriented cinema spectator, who thought it to be perfect. Just beside Shindler's list and Pulp Fiction? Are you serious?
To sum it up - I would advise all those that praise Dark Knight, have a few hours lecture about history of cinema. They might be surprised, what genial directors are capable of. I would suggest starting with Kubric, Tarkovsky, Copolla, Lynch... And after the lecture adjust their evaluation scale accordingly.