List Price: $19.98Amazon.com's Price: $11.99 You Save: $7.99 (40%)as of 11/21/2009 17:44 EST
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping.
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Audience Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Binding: DVD
Brand: Warner Brothers
EAN: 0883929031283
Feature: The follow-up to Batman Begins, THE DARK KNIGHT reunites director Christopher Nolan and star Christian Bale, who reprises the role of BATMAN /BRUCE WAYNE in his continuing war on crime. With the help of LT. JIM GORDON and District Attorney HARVEY DENT,BATMAN sets out to destroy organized crime in Gotham for good. The triumvirate proves effective, but soon find themselves prey to a rising criminal
Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, DVD, Full Screen, NTSC
Label: Warner Home Video
Languages: EnglishOriginal LanguageDolby Digital 5.1EnglishSubtitledFrenchSubtitledSpanishSubtitledFrench CanadianDubbedSpanishDubbedDolby Digital 5.1
Manufacturer: Warner Home Video
MPN: 1000040876
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Warner Home Video
Region Code: 1
Release Date: December 09, 2008
Running Time: 152 minutes
Studio: Warner Home Video
Theatrical Release Date: 2008
Features:- The follow-up to Batman Begins, THE DARK KNIGHT reunites director Christopher Nolan and star Christian Bale, who reprises the role of BATMAN /BRUCE WAYNE in his continuing war on crime. With the help of LT. JIM GORDON and District Attorney HARVEY DENT,BATMAN sets out to destroy organized crime in Gotham for good. The triumvirate proves effective, but soon find themselves prey to a rising criminal
Related Items:
Browse for similar items by category: Click to Display
Editorial Review:
Product Description:
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 12/09/2008 Run time: 151 minutes Rating: Pg13
Amazon.com:
The Dark Knight arrives with tremendous hype (best superhero movie ever? posthumous Oscar for Heath Ledger?), and incredibly, it lives up to all of it. But calling it the best superhero movie ever seems like faint praise, since part of what makes the movie great--in addition to pitch-perfect casting, outstanding writing, and a compelling vision--is that it bypasses the normal fantasy element of the superhero genre and makes it all terrifyingly real. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is Gotham City's new district attorney, charged with cleaning up the crime rings that have paralyzed the city. He enters an uneasy alliance with the young police lieutenant, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), and Batman (Christian Bale), the caped vigilante who seems to trust only Gordon--and whom only Gordon seems to trust. They make progress until a psychotic and deadly new player enters the game: the Joker (Heath Ledger), who offers the crime bosses a solution--kill the Batman. Further complicating matters is that Dent is now dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, after Katie Holmes turned down the chance to reprise her role), the longtime love of Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne.
In his last completed role before his tragic death, Ledger is fantastic as the Joker, a volcanic, truly frightening force of evil. And he sets the tone of the movie: the world is a dark, dangerous place where there are no easy choices. Eckhart and Oldman also shine, but as good as Bale is, his character turns out rather bland in comparison (not uncommon for heroes facing more colorful villains). Director-cowriter Christopher Nolan (Memento) follows his critically acclaimed Batman Begins with an even better sequel that sets itself apart from notable superhero movies like Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man because of its sheer emotional impact and striking sense of realism--there are no suspension-of-disbelief superpowers here. At 152 minutes, it's a shade too long, and it's much too intense for kids. But for most movie fans--and not just superhero fans--The Dark Knight is a film for the ages. --David Horiuchi
On the DVD
Unlike the Blu-ray disc, The Dark Knight on DVD is completely in 2.40:1 aspect ratio. You can, however, watch the six IMAX scenes separately. Also on disc 2 are "Gotham Uncovered: The Creation of a Scene," which is behind-the-scenes footage about the Bat suit, the Bat pod, and the music; eight-minute segments of Gotham Central, a faux-news program that gives some background to events in the movie; plus a variety of trailers, poster art, and more. Last, there's a digital copy of the film compatible with iTunes and Windows Media (download code expires 12/9/09). --David Horiuchi
Average Rating: 
Rating:  -
Knowning all the hype that was put out about this movie had me very very concerned. Due to, from past experience, the lack of substance that a movie will have once completed and in theaters. More times than not a movie with such over hype usually is just a way for studios to try to gain money from the audeince who doesn't know any better and once it is seen it falls away into oblivian. That was my concern about this movie. That it would suck so bad that it completely destory Batman as a comic book character that has been around since the early 20th century. Just because studios think that the masses are just dumb sheep who will make a hit out of a movie just because of a lot of advertising was put behind it.
However, I was pleasantly proven wrong about this movie. What Christpher Nolan did with Batman Begins he built upon in this one. We see a city still in dispair to the point of breaking. Yet there is hope on the streets and fear starting emerge in the hearts of criminals, all because of Batman. Along comes the Joker. He is a sucidal maniac who wants to prove to the world that it sits on a thin thread between chaos and order. Thinking that most of society, at its heart, is chaotic is oout to take down the only thing standing between him and complete anarchy, Batman. To take down the Joker and his diabolical plans Batman, LT. Gordon, and newly appointed D.A. Harvey Dent team up. Although, the heroes of this story try to take down the Joker through moral ways he makes it very difficult for them to make the right decision and become a symbol of hope for the city of Gotham.
In the end the movie blew me away and then some. The script was well written. The movie was well acted by everyone included. And the moral choices that the characters had to make pushed comic book heroes into the real life that everyone can identify with.
Rating:  -
Batman as the CIA, Gordon as Cheney - what a miserable and extremely dreary ending to an otherwise fabulously conceived and brilliantly executed movie. Batman and Gordon are the real architects of the world without rules in a movie where they are supposed to be telling us how to deal with such a world. Smacks far too much of neo-con 101 for my liking.
Instead of organising a shoddy and sordid little cover-up at the very end, all they had to do was tell the people the truth that Dent had been morally broken by the Joker and that the Joker had been captured, and Gotham's soul would not only have been saved but massively fortified against such future attacks.
Instead we have the possibility of more mangled-morality and hideous cod-philosophising in Batman 3 (or 7, whatever you prefer), more dilution of Batman's uniquely moral symbolism, and more incoherent ramblings from professional and amateur critics about the superbly complex and sophisticated philosophical positions taken by the movie.
This film reminds me a lot of Michael Mann products which are so technically accomplished and overpoweringly hypnotic, that you frequently fail to process the fact that you being fed second-rate, morally suspect, nutritionally-hollow horse-crock in terms of plot and character along-side your delicious and gorgeous cinematic visuals.
All in all, this film was a terrible waste of a fine cast, headed by the brilliant Ledger, a great premise and a fine predecessor.
Maybe we get the Batman we deserve. Once an outside-the-law extension of the will of the people a la Clint Eastwood's avenging angel characters, now an above-the-law manipulator of the will of the people a la John Travolta's Swordfish character. A very depressing turn of events which we hope will be rectified in future Batman films. Fingers, sadly, are not crossed.
Rating:  -
Mention character study as a reason to watch a movie to me, and you have just counterproducted yourself. When you say character study, I often say people study. Unlike some movie fans, I try my best to say grounded with reality, trying very hard not get impressed by every character on the screen as much as possible, getting to know (or observing) interesting people, getting into interesting experiences situations by myself, basically, all things real life. That doesn't mean I dislike a character study. Even though plot, film making, characters are crucial in making a movie complete. Interesting characters really can make a movie all that better. Oh who am I kidding? Bland characters can kill a movie. Just ask Roland Emmerich, as his characters are so bland that all the special effects in the world can't make a great movie (although, surprise surprise, his later).
Characters in movies are a peculiar thing. Some of them can be memorable, easy to love, identify, and let you watch and believe it, feeling everything the character is, loving or hating the person on screen. Even sometimes, the actors can make a character that isn't totally unique fall into this catergory. On the flip side, so many characters in movies are so "real" that watching them makes you wonder why the hell your even watching these personalities on the screen. So much that you realize that you aren't living a life of your own at all. Chances are, they don't have much plot revolving around them either.
The Dark Knight is being touted as the most realistic and intelligent comic book movie ever, a label that has so much laughable baggage in it. Basically, I see the whole Batman and DC comic label a gimmick. The story is not that interesting underneath, there is no atmosphere, the characters are not that interesting, the themes are't that original, and everything is ANALYZED to death (Nostalgia Critic hit the nail on what he meant about that). The Nostalgia Critic was right about what he said about analyzed, as everything is talked about at length. And many of the speeches aren't even that original. When the Joker is talking about how civiled people turn into animals, DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? It something that was told in Lord of the Flies, nay, Freud's concept of the id, ego, and supergo already. And Freud's concept says a lot more in less tedious ways.
So who are the characters? Yes, the Joker is all about anarchy and chaos, but so are many other people. Sure, none have been close to taking over a city, but I think that most can figure out that anarchy can get out of hand. Frankly, seeing it really isn't that interesting. The Joker also really doesn't resemble the comic books as much as he should. When drawn, the Joker looks INSANE, crazy, and loony. I remember how much I used to shake at the sight of such pictures as Batman: The Man Who Laughs. Heath Ledger's joker look still doesn't do that much for me. And forget his . Jack Nicholson's is a litte more fun, and since Heath doesn't scare me that much, Nicholson's cartoony edge makes him more fun to watch.
The Dark Knight, however, is not a bad movie. Christopher Nolan is a great director, the acting is stellar, the music is great, basically, the technical aspects are excellent. The action scenes are exciting, as well as some great scenes that I liked scattered about. I also loved the Batmobile and the batbike, watching his costumes, and Heath Ledger's brillaint scene with his hostage. It wasn't exactly scary, but I could only imagine the silence that followed in the theater after it. Also, Two-Face was the best incarnation of the villian, considering that the first incarnation of the villian, well nevermind. Gary Oldman also was a much better Detective Gordon, simply because how well he sinks into the role. Oldman can sink into anything.
Yes, I do like Tim Burton's Batman series better, but that's not why I am rating this as an average movie. Rather everything else above makes it average. While this is miles better than the Joel Schumacher movies (Ya think?), it's touted "realism" is third person, which really hampers the movie since it has absolutely nothing to really offer besides that, a character study. Did I enjoy it? Sure. However, I expected a whole lot more, and The Dark Knight would probably not even got if it wasn't bagged as a comic book movie (ugh), no less known as a Batman movie.
Rating: -
I really enjoyed this movie it was full of action and the dark knight was amazing I really don't like the bat-man but what are you going to do I would have preferred Clooney but what are you going to do overall it is a must see movie!
Rating: -
On one hand it's the easiest thing to make a comic book movie -- the characters, the plot, the fan base are already there. On the other hand it's the hardest thing to make a comic book movie -- the characters, the plot, the fan base are already there.
There is an inherent contradiction in "Batman": a billionaire vigilante who prowls the streets to beat up poor thugs must be a psychopath, megalomaniac, and narcissist -- yet he accepts most social norms, the most important being that murder is wrong. Batman's a psychopath with a conscience -- he's an impossible contradiction.
Nearly everyone before has chosen to ignore this contradiction but the director Christopher Nolan chooses to confront it outright in "The Dark Knight" by asking what a hero is, and what kind of a hero society needs.
Strangely enough Mr. Nolan chooses to ask these questions by showing what a hero is not -- the real star of the movie is Batman's arch-nemesis the Joker, who in his actions and logic begins and drives the plot of the movie.
The strangest thing about a villain named the Joker is that he's not funny. And he's certainly not mad, otherwise he would make sense. In a hospital scene with another villain Two-Face the Joker tries to explain his motivations -- and is completely incoherent. Joker rails against those "with a plan" and the order of things but unlike Tyler Durden in "Fight Club" doesn't point any fingers.
Because he's an amoral thinker and tinkerer of the human condition the Joker would be better off calling himself "Philosopher" or "Professor." Remember how in college you attended classes where a very serious man stood on the lectern and lectured on endlessly with big words and complicated syntax? You have to believe he was talking about something serious but you just don't know what he's talking about, and in the end you have to believe he doesn't know either -- well, that's the Joker in "The Dark Knight."
After two and a half hours we learn absolutely nothing concrete about the Joker -- and he's just implausible. He's brilliant but incoherent. He can plan the perfect bank heist, and kill anyone he wants -- but he can't articulate his motives. So we're stuck with this brilliant villain who likes to kill and maim but doesn't know why -- and we all know that what brilliant villains can do best is rationalize -- Hitler and Stalin and Mao all thought they were saviors and saints.
It is impossible to watch the Joker, and not think that this is Heath Ledger playing the Joker. Heath Ledger gives a marvelously subtle performance in "Brokeback Mountain," and you have to believe he's trying his best to articulate something in "The Dark Knight" -- possibly re-create Milton's Satan for the 21st century? -- but either the script or the director or the producer doesn't co-operate, and he's left with saying nothing whatsoever. He's trying and he's talking but he's been muted -- isn't that one of the most frustrating, unsatisfying positions an artist can find himself in?
Because of Heath Ledger's death we'll all remember the Joker, and what will we remember about the Joker? That when the whole world was paying attention he said nothing at all.
And how about the director Christopher Nolan? His debut "Memento," though rough and jagged and excessive, is still nevertheless powerful and shocking -- one of the best films ever made. And with "The Prestige" -- his best film to date -- he shows what a very skilled craftsman he is. And "The Dark Knight" is competently made -- the music is superb, the various subplots weave together nicely, and the cinematography is stunning and innovative. But the director is clearly unsure of what kind of movie he wants to make, or capable of making. Does he want to make eye candy, and delight the 16-year old boys who are the cornerstone of the Summer Blockbuster industry? Or does he want to make a thought-provoking character study that will affirm his status as one of Hollywood's best young filmmakers? Unfortunately he wants both, and the result is thoroughly unsatisfying. He asks hard questions but gives easy answers; he wants to be an artist but he wants to appeal to popular tastes.
And thus the consistent and competent Mr. Nolan may be stuck making consistently competent films all his life, and already Mr. Nolan must be asking: why? "The Dark Knight" says nothing, and even worse it tries too damn hard to say something.
And then there's Christian Bale. He's proven himself a brilliant actor in "American Psycho" and "The Machinist," and why he's chosen to play a Phallus for two and a half hours is an even harder question than why Joker chooses to kill and why Christopher Nolan chose to direct "The Dark Knight." At least the Joker must enjoy killing and Christopher Nolan enjoy directing but Mr. Bale does not look happy playing Batman -- he looks bored out of his mind. ... Read More
|
