Good? Yes. Great? Yea. Amazingly perfect in every possible way on an epic scale of perfection? No.

Rating: 8/10 (20 July 2008)

I have the flame suit on. I've already called my lawyers. I've prepared fake passports and bought several different aliases to run by. I have also transferred my funds to a European account. Why so serious? Because, here we go, The Dark Knight is not the epic piece of Godly art that everyone is hyping it to be.
*Runs*
The Dark Knight is a good piece of work, a decent movie, but does not fall into near-perfection by any means. Despite the amazing performances, writing, and action sequences, the heart and core of the comic book flavor is severely missing. Issues from Batman Begins is carried over and repeated here, even though they aren't as easy to spot. This is much better than Begins, but still fails to totally erase the memory of Burton's vision of Batman. Resembling more The Godfather and Heat rather than a flick like Iron Man or Spider-Man, it's a totally different sort of movie involving superheroes and supervillians. Gotham City STILL doesn't truly look like Gotham City.
Starting the movie is a bank robbery unlike any other, setting the tone of the movie instantly. We see the Joker (Heath Ledger) stirring some early trouble with the mob and crime lords. We then see Batman imitators lurking about. Last, but not least, we see Bruce Wayne's ex (Maggie Gyllenhaal) around the arms of another man: Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Then running amok throughout the 150+ minutes of The Dark Knight are action sequences, plot twists, several surprises, several close calls, and a whole lot of crime drama. Good vs. Evil is a battle that is horrifically blurred, and human nature surrounding Gotham City is being tested. All the tension is overcoming Bruce Wayne and Batman, and he begins questioning his motives and placement within the city. The writing staff threw in plenty of deep and engaging dialogue amongst all the action we see on-screen. It's a Batman fan's dream come true; or is it?
We can start by crediting Heath Ledger for a fine performance as the Joker. But if Ledger deserves an Oscar for his role, so should Nicholson back in 1989, because believe there are many similarities in terms of performance. The Joker here is cynical, merciless, and is bent on anarchy for no reasonbut so was Joker in 1989. If Ledger wins the Oscar, then Jack himself should be accepting it on his behalf. Christian Bale yet again fails as Batman with his frustrating raspy voice. As Bruce Wayne he nails it, but as Batman he still needs a bit of work. When Batman starts monologing, it's hard not to cringe. The rest of the cast does a good job, most notably Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon. Let's also not forget Morgan Freedman, Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
The biggest strength of the Batman universe lies within the balance of Batman and his villains. Almost all of them have some sort of connection with our hero. However, the treatment of villains yet again is disappointing, as we see a few villains limited to mere cameos, and the Joker himself (despite the trailers) does not get as much screen time as you may assume. In the infamous 1989 version, we saw the Joker rise from lowly punk criminal to a serious threat to the entire city. In the Dark Knight, unlike Batman, there is literally no explanation as to why he is the way he is. There is no backstory revealed, nothing that could possibly explain his physical appearance and mental state. Surely he may craft some tales, but why believe a madman's tale as he wields a knife to your lips?
Dark Knight's best moments were not the action sequences, but the immense tension and suspense predating the payoff .Rarely could you predict the outcomes of some of the conflicts, and for the most part all the payoffs were grand, sometimes leading to applause. The chases and action-packed moments themselves were also well-crafted and made great use of special effects. Yet with so many problems flying at you at the same time, it's impossible to expect them all to be concluded and wrapped up in the end. Nolan's direction is stunning from time to time, but then he runs out of steam towards the end of the third act, when the movie is almost finished. The ending, albeit unexpected, was a bit underwhelming and quite vague, especially considering the fact that The Dark Knight is 150 minutes long.
Bottom Line: The negativity is sprinkled about in this review, but don't let that fool you. The Dark Knight is indeed a great blockbuster flick that will have you forgetting that there's popcorn and soda by your side. From the dazzling performance of the late Heath Ledger to the carefully-constructed action sequences that keep the pace flowing, there is plenty to praise about. That being said, it's still not the best superhero movie of all-time. Batman is a comic book, and the cast of this new franchise must remember this. You can dwell as much realism as you'd like, but the fact remains that this isn't a realistic franchise nor should it ever be treated as such.
Gotham City is still missing its gritty, Gothic, dark architecture and style of Burton's films, and needs more emphasis on the villains that are in Batman's world. The villains are the "yang" to the Batman mythology, and Batman himself is the "yin"; you can't have too much of one and not enough of the other. While it isn't Batman and Robin or Fantastic Four (both of them) The Dark Knight still falls short of masterpiece quality simply because of its exchange of comic book style for realistic crime drama. The Dark Knight is a great ride, but not an epic one to Quality Heaven.