Quantcast
The Magazine for Youth Ministry
You Are Here
  HOME  REVIEWS  MOVIES
MOVIE REVIEWS SEARCH
X
 MOVIE REVIEWS ARCHIVE

Page   1  2  3  4  5  >

Page   1  2  3  4  5  >

Powerful Dark Knight a Solid Superhero Film
AVERAGE RATING
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Powerful Dark Knight a Solid Superhero Film
By Christian Hamaker
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

As the mayhem escalates, Batman recedes. Gotham needs a more visible hero, he believes, and prosecutor Harvey Dent is Gotham’s “white knight.” No matter that Dent is now taking up with Bruce Wayne’s old flame, Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over for Katie Holmes from Batman Begins), or that Dent has a fondness for the Roman tactic of suspending democracy when times got tough. Tough times call for tough action, and Dent is the man of the hour. Plus, Batman has acted on ever darker impulses in going after the criminal element, and the psychological toll has become too much. “I’ve seen what I have to become to stop men like [the Joker],” he tells Dent, in resignation.

Advertisement

The Joker ratchets up his attacks through the use of improvised explosive devices and car bombs—an effective insurgent campaign that paralyzes Gotham and leads its crime-fighters to resort to more forceful but less focused tactics, including widespread surveillance technology that lets Batman peer into the private lives of Gotham’s citizens. “This is wrong,” says Wayne’s ally, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), but given the perilous situation, he agrees to help Wayne “this one time” if it will save lives—the crux of the moral dilemma posed in the trade-off of certain rights and liberties in our current war.

That’s weighty fare for a summer blockbuster, and it’s the biggest risk to public acceptance of The Dark Knight. No one wants a lecture during their chosen popcorn flick, and if a film is going to push buttons related to the War on Terror, it’s guaranteed to divide audiences. It’s a tribute, then, to Nolan, who also co-wrote The Dark Knight, that this potentially heavy material balances strong moral condemnation of terrorism with a cold examination of motives and tactics that have unintended consequences. And all this in an entertaining package, albeit a relentlessly dark one.

Driven by a strong performance by Heath Ledger and excellent support from Gary Oldman, The Dark Knight strengthens the franchise’s reputation under Nolan, who took the Batman saga back to its origins in Batman Begins and now moves it forward with another solid effort, laying a strong foundation for future films in the series. The main drawback to the film is that, just as the public has entered into a period of “war fatigue,” The Dark Knight stretches and tests the patience of its audience. By the time the film reaches its final half-hour, viewers may begin to wonder if, to borrow a title from a well received documentary about the current war, there’s “no end in sight.”

It’s a trade-off worth making: a final half hour of sound and fury that don’t amount to much, against two full hours of absorbing drama and action that precede those 30 minutes. If nothing else—if the war parallels and social commentary aren’t your thing—Ledger’s final screen performance (he died soon after filming was completed) will stay with you. It’s the highlight of an all-around strong, if overlong, entry in the superhero genre.

Questions? Comments? Contact the writer at crosswalkchristian@earthlink.net.

CAUTIONS:

  • Drugs/Alcohol:  A judge takes out a bottle of liquor in response to a death threat.
  • Crime:  Gotham City is under the influence of the mob; attempted blackmail.
  • Language/Profanity:  Lord’s name taken in vain; some foul language.
  • Sex/Nudity:  Brief kissing.
  • Violence/Other: A bank robbery involves multiple murders; a lawyer punches a defendant; a man is slammed into a desk; multiple shootings and stabbings; lives, including that of a child, are threatened, only to be spared; fisticuffs and brawls; a car bombing and massive explosion that takes down a building; a man is thrown off a building but survives; several long falls but few deaths or serious injuries; a woman slaps a man; a dog attack.

Content Provided by: http://www.crosswalk.com

Page   1  2

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
  • WarriorJ 8/25/2008 2:41 AM
    Good script and convincing performances by actors set in a macabre environment. Aside the utter abandonment of comic book lore surrounding Joker and Two Face the producers go out of their way to celebrate violence and destruction, a sad cry from the more constructive Batman movie of 1989 that does a better job balancing Good and Evil in Gotham City. Halfway though the movie the story is in a continual downward spiral from the sublime to the mundane. Despite the bombs on the boats that test ‘the populace’ integrity and renews our faith in humanity the constant barrage of disillusionment overshadows that effort. Moreover, at the end of the movie viewers are left with a very slim ray of hope…Batman is vilified except to the little boy who regards him as a hero and Gotham City is darker than ever “Hope deferred makes The Heart sick”. Not a movie for Christians who purpose to look at the world through God’s lenses and not Man’s, 1 Peter 3:8-9 and Philippians 4:8. MPAA Rating should be R
  • Disciplefan 8/24/2008 2:53 PM
    I watched The Dark Knight the weekend it came out I think its one of the best movies I have ever seen in my 8 years of watching movies. There are some negative comments from users about how dark this movie is. Those negative commentators should realize.... THATS THE WHOLE REASON FOR BATMANS EXISTENCE! IF GOTHAM CITY WASNT DARK, BATMAN WOULDNT HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IT! I think those of you who commented so negatively on this movie are just paranoid. This movie is a great movie despite what all of you say. Be sure to read Giacooper465 comments on this movie.
  • sgtmattbaker 7/25/2008 5:34 PM
    If you are not convicted against seeing a film that uses the Lord's name in vain, there that is your conviction. I am convicted to not see the film unless I do not hear such language. Some people don't notice it, but I have only been in the theatre for 30 seconds at a time (30 seconds max; we have to go in and check the theatres to make sure people aren't being obnoxious and that the sound is working, etc.) and the two times I have done so I almost immediately heard God's name used in vain both times. Poor timing? Probably, but I would most definitely hear and dislike hearing all 9 instances of blasphemy. I just don't think it was necessary for them to do it in the film. I also don't see it as justifiable, the actors (and subsequently the director) are using the Lord's name is such a trivial way as to simply portray shock in a film. I don't agree with that.

Page   1  2  3  4  > 

  • YouthWorker.com (Salem All-Pass) registration.
    Salem Forums Users: You do not need to register for a new account; your forums account is part of the "Salem All-Pass."
    Registration is Easy and it's FREE!
    Required fields marked with *
    *Username:
    *Password:
    *Confirm Password:
    *E-mail Address:
    FREE NEWSLETTERS

    Terms of Use / Privacy Policy
Subscribe Today
YOUTHWORKER.COM NEWSYOUTHWORKER.COM NEWS
NUTHIN' BUT NETNOTHIN' BUT NET
SEARCH THE BIBLESEARCH THE BIBLE
Salem Publishing