The shorter, the longer

God, I remember being pursued by the "forensics" team during my sophomore year of high school and just being completely uninterested in the notion of winning by being able to quote more sources in less time than the opposition.

By and large, I don't think I was too bothered by pacing or editing, but there were a few spots that jumped out at me. The most notable, I think, was the line shortly after the kidnapping scene where Bruce asks Alfred how they caught his thief in Burma and Alfred responds, "We burned the forest to the ground" and before you even realize what he's said we've smash-cutted to Harvey waking up in the hospital.

For my part, the multiple viewings were largely to try and luxuriate not in a movie slipping through my fingers but in a crowd sensation that is so rare that I don't know if I - at 31 - can honestly expect to experience anything quite like it again. The first time is always the best though, and throughout even the opening weekend, there was never a crowd quite like that first midnight screening, where we lost ourselves so completely in the sudden return of a character thought dead that we missed several lines of dialogue in our cheering. Perhaps there was another problem in the editing - that reveal was not given quite the emphasis I thought it needed.

Totally agree on this. That image of the Joker hanging out the window is so pitch-perfect that it is a real shame it isn't given the respect it deserves. It does more to explain the character than the entire hospital scene and it only lasts for 4 or 5 seconds.

Truncated is the word! It seemed like one of those old prints that have the last 20 seconds of each reel cut off. After Maggie Gyllenhaal died, and the movie didn't pause a beat, I totally gave up on the whole thing. It lost me. It's like porn made entirely of money shots.

I'd say this is an emperor's new clothes deal except I can't imagine so many people are wrong. I just don't understand what movie they're seeing.

For whatever reason, "The Dark Knight" felt to me like The Movie that Wouldn't End. It was tedious beyond belief. And oddly enough I didn't really feel that way with any other summer movie except perhaps "Speed Racer".
"Iron Man"and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" felt just right (and perfectly well-paced) at just around 2 hours or so. "Tell No One" was perfectly paced and totally kept you on the edge of your seat for about 2 hrs. 15 mins. "Hancock" on the other hand might have felt slightly overlong even at 90 minutes, but it was by no means the test of endurance that TDK was.
More than how long individual shots might have lasted, I just felt it had little or no narrative coherence and that nobody had ever explained to Nolan what a three-act story structure even is. I was just waiting for the movie to end after about 95 minutes, maybe 100.
A character like Batman used to be just fine for Saturday morning serials that might have lasted 15 minutes or so. Today, a Batman movie feels longer than a double bill of B-movies used to be.
Why some people put up with summer movies that go on for at least half-an-hour too long (whether it's TDK, Spider-Man 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean 3) is absolutely beyond me, unless perhaps they live in very hot places and do not have air-conditioning at home. That's about the only reason why I'd ever want to be in a theater for 150+ minutes for a story that could have been told in 100-105 minutes.

Pacing can be a very subjective thing. I think that The Departed and The Dark Knight are the two most relentlessly-paced movies I've ever seen. Two other films that come to mind in this vein are Fincher's Fight Club and Oliver Stone's JFK, two movies which throws an unbelievable amount of information at the audience in a brief period of time. I don't think any of these three films is guilty of being so quick that it becomes incomprehensible (as Robert Downey Junior seems to suggest). I am sure that there are many other similarly paced films, but those four stand out as the fastest paced movies in my memory. I don't know the details of the average shot lengths, but they all 'feel' relentless. All four of those movies are also among the best movies I've ever seen.

In those four instances, I think the director made a conscious pacing choice in response to the material. In JFK, Stone set out to capture the chaotic, paranoid, and frustrating nature of the actual case. In Fight Club, Fincher set out to convey those same qualities in the mind of its narrator. Scorsese's The Departed used its quick editing to intentionally blur the distinctions between its characters. In The Dark Knight, I think Nolan's motives are also character and thematically based. Nolan never wants there to be a moment in which the audience feels safe. There are countless points in the story when the heroes make 'progress,' but those moments are always immediately followed by some greater tragedy.

Consider the closing monologue of Batman Begins, which foreshadows some of the main themes (and even the structure) of The Dark Knight:

[last lines]
GORDON: What about escalation?
BATMAN: Escalation?
GORDON: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds.
BATMAN: And?
GORDON: And *you're* wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.
BATMAN: I'll look into it.

Unlike Batman Begins, which told an origin story filled with peaks and valleys over many years, The Dark Knight depicts a war of relentless escalation over the course of a few weeks. The chain of cause and effect just keeps accelerating, as one event keeps feeding into the next one. Batman, the Joker, and Dent are all wrapped up in a tango back and forth with each other in the battle for Gotham's soul.

Regardless, though, I do sympathize your desire to 'linger a bit longer' on some of the images. The film often does look more beautiful in still shots than in motion. I would love to find a good web site filled with Dark Knight screen-captures, to dissect some of those images a bit better. Still, I prefer films that refrain from 'basking in their own glory,' so to speak, which fall in love with shots and hold them way too long.

There's been a lot of good stuff about The Dark Knight online. Nolan's movie just inspired that. This is also really good:
http://www.cinema-crazed.com/r-z/whythedarkknightis.htm

I can't stop reading the other stuff online. Nolan's film is a pure piece of comic book art.

SPOILER ALERT

The Joker clearly lied to Batman, but because of the pacing and intensity of the sequence, it seems ambiguous. The devil is in the details.

When you watch it again, pay attention to what the Joker tells Batman and what courses of action Batman and Gordon take. The Joker says that Harvey is at 252nd Street, and Rachel is at Avenue X. Gordon asks which one Batman will save, and Batman replies, "Rachel!" Then Gordon declares that his team will go after Dent. Then we see some cross-cutting between Batman en route, Gordon en route, and the Joker at the station. In the midst of this, you hear Gordon shouting, "All units converge on 252nd Street!" Near the end of the movie, Dent tells Gordon to meet him "where [his] family died," and he goes to 252nd Street.

Plus, it doesn't make narrative sense for Batman to have changed his mind. Think about it. He would've had to have told Gordon that he changed his mind, and both of them would've had to switch directions, wasting valuable time.

I think this analysis is flawed. Obviously the movie is very fast-paced like The Departed or Dark City (or Begins), but it slows down long enough for its important scenes. The interrogation scene with the Joker for instance, the centerpiece and probably the best scene of the film, was totally satisfying. And how about that topsy-turvy shot near the end, with the Joker hanging by Batman's rope? Nolan holds that shot for the right amount of time, and its probably the best one in the movie.

There are other sequences that dont' feel rushed throughout, but the movie is like a really meaty graphic novel that jumps back and forth between its characters. I think this technique works artistically as well because it feels almost like we're dropping in on the characters at whatever point of the plot they're occupying at that time, and it slowly adds up to a complex portrait of Gotham and its citizens. The characters start out as one-dimensional enigmas until by the end they've finally revealed who they really are almost before we've even noticed (I'm thinking Dent and Wayne here).

It makes us ask more questions on our second viewing, during the seemingly "rushed" and more unimportant scenes during the first half. I think this is definitely a movie that requires more than one viewing to fully take it in, to pick up on all the little details Nolan peppers about. You notice how cocky Harvey Dent is, and how he talks to ordinary people as if he's on the pulpit at a press conference. You start to see more clearly how that's a facade, and how he lets his true self come out in brief, almost childish flashes of anger, specifically with Joker's thug after the "assassination" scene.

This fast-pace is a technique, not an accident. It doesn't work for all movies (I'm thinking The Bank Job here) but with The Dark Knight as well as The Departed, among others, it's suitable in detailing a whole, giant mess of a situation, and letting us piece together what it all means on our own, afterwards.

PS. I also disagree with your criticism of the films themes being "over-explained." First of all I'd like to remind you this is a pretty giant movie that's meant for younger viewers as well as just regular moviegoers who aren't used to analyzing a film after they see it, so it's no great sin to have the themes out there right in front of you instead of buried in the usual metaphors and symbolism. And second, I don't think the dialogue ever really touches on what the movie's really saying. The Joker has a couple big monologues about his look on life, yes, but the Batman doesn't, and I think that's no accident, either.

Great points. There certainly are instances where it would have been nice to linger in the moment. But I’m convinced that one of the reasons people think that the movie seems too long is due to the massive shift from Joker-centric to Two-Face-centric storytelling. Many fans, and especially comic fanboys, have defended the Dent/Two-Face metamorphosis, saying it’s crucial to illustrating the Joker’s villainy, but I still don’t buy it. I think the pencil scene sets the tone right from the get-go, like Hannibal Lecter’s instantly memorable stare. From that moment, we’re invested and we believe.

TDK is alive when Ledger is on the screen. Comparatively it’s muddled and a little aimless when he isn’t. Within the first four days of the movie’s release, I saw the movie twice in packed theaters. Both times, but especially the second, I noticed that cell phone glow only appeared in the theater in the latter 30 minutes and never when the Joker was on the screen. Hardly a scientific study, but I think it’s illustrative of the film’s affect on the audience.

I think it's a deliberate choice, and I can't say which I'd prefer. What you're commenting on goes to the feel of the film more than anything else--change the lengths of some of these shots, and you can make it either a fast-paced thrill-ride or a somber, moody poem. I would have liked the latter, but would I have liked it more? I don't know. I do know that the Dark Knight is just about the best fast-paced thrill-ride movie I've ever seen, and in terms of that goal is a masterpiece of streamlining an incredibly complex story through editing, score, cinematography, dialogue...

It would have felt different. I don't know if it would have felt better; I might have loved it more deeply but been less excited throughout. I don't know.

I do think there's room for a little compromise--TDK could have taken a few more moments to breathe and luxuriate in some of its many striking images. But too much would have changed the film. And I don't think that slower, sadder movie would have made 500 million dollars.

I'll take a fast paced movie like this where lots of stuff happens as opposed to a movie with a more stately pace in which less happens. Cases in point, and I realize this is blasphemy, but Brokebak Mountain and There Will Be Blood I like what Howard Hawks said: "They're called motion pictures. Let's make them move!"

The Joker most definitely switches the addresses around on Batman, telling him Rachel is at the one Harvey is, knowing from earlier (in the penthouse scene) that he would go to save her, thus crushing him in some way by forcing him to save Harvey instead.

I will say that, although I disagree about its impact and its execution being seriously flawed, even fundamentally as some have accused it, THE DARK KNIGHT could have indeed benefitted from slowing down to refine some of its points and scenes. The Joker in the cop car is indeed the most intriguing shot, and it lasts all of about five seconds in the film...

I really liked TDK, too, but it was too long. It would have benefited from the removal of a couple of subplots. I was reminded of the anecdote about the movie mogul who tested the quality of film by whether his butt hurt before it was over. Because mine did.

At the same time, I think if you want more of a scene, then that just means it's a good scene. It doesn't mean that the film would benefit if you actually had more of it. If a film gave you everything you wanted the first time you saw it, you'd never need to see it again.

Spoiler Alert

In the Rachel/Harvey kidnap, it was definitely a Joker trick. Gordon asks Batman which one he is going after. When he says Rachel, Gordon says the cops will get Dent. If Batman had changed his mind, they both would have showed up at the same place. Instead, you see the cops get to Rachel’s just before it explodes.

I only rarely noticed that the editing was a problem for me--I felt like it cut too quickly after Dent says "Half" near the end, but that's all that springs to mind.

I admit, the editing tends to be fast-paced, but I think it works well. If you're willing to let yourself be invested in the film (rather than keeping the cynical critical distance many do, particularly for comic book films) then it actually creates a slightly disorienting sense of urgency that really serves the purposes of the film.

As much as I loved TDK, of course it feels rushed when they try to pack so much plot into a single movie. OK, they probably could've let the scenes breathe a bit more if they'd trimmed down some of the redundancy of those "underlining the character's motivation" moments, but assuming that was a stylistic choice Nolan wouldn't budge from, the only other option is to simply have less things happening in those 2+ hours.
In particular, I thought it was pretty clear that TDK suffered from one of the same problems that plagued Spider-Man 3.

SPOILER ALERT

Dunno if I'm the only one, but I wish superhero movies would get rid of this idea that a villain's story arc has to be resolved within a single movie.
Spider-Man 3: On top of dealing with Sandman and Goblin Jr. we've got Peter spending a couple hours struggling with the issues of his new black suit, and in the last 20 minutes or so, the suit finds a new host, becomes the Spidey-villain known as Venom, and (possibly) dies by the end of the climactic showdown. As a result, the plot ends up getting rushed to the finish line. Sound familiar?
Imagine if they'd insisted on Harry Osborne learning the truth of his father's death, finding the Goblin tools, and becoming New Goblin, all within the first Spider-Man. All they had to do was place the church scene at the *end* of SM3 (after Sandman and Harry are dealt with), and leave the audience with a creation-of-Venom cliffhanger to lead us into a Spider-Man 4. One film to explore the black suit, one film to explore Venom. Each is worthy of its own screen time (depending on how it's handled, of course).
The Dark Knight: Same problem. Instead of fading to black with a climactic Harvey-Dent-is-lost-forever moment, and a whole 'nother film to find out what happens now that he's on "the other side," we get what amounts to a frenzied quickie after two hours of gradual foreplay of plot. It doesn't make sense to spend so much time with Dent, and so little time with Two-Face.

I agree with both you (and Downey) that the storytelling in "The Dark Knight" is rushed, almost cursory...it provides signposts for the audience to fill-in-the-blanks, but doesn't provide any imaginative spin on the storytelling markers that its checking off.

However, I do disagree with you about that shot of the Joker...it was one of the few moments in the movie that I would call sublime (I suppose it could have lasted a little bit longer, but I loved the way Nolan drained all of the sound from the image, so we were just watching the Joker in full chaotic glory).

The editing, though frenzied and absurd at times, was never the problem for me. The problem is that, even at almost three hours, "The Dark Knight" is too crowded. In writing the film I feel that Nolan is already starting to fall into the trap that Burton set for the last series of Batman films. Namely, introducing too much at once, and in the need to make a climactic, exciting film, killing all those elements off too soon. Each movie should include no more than one villain. I know that the Batman universe has a wide array of nasty characters that fanboys are foaming at the mouth to see. But if they're all in the same picture, it doesn't leave much to be seen. "Batman Begins" had it right. It even used a minor baddie, but spent most of it's time deepening the myth and history behind Batman. Maybe this movie could have told us something more of the Joker? Maybe Dent could have been in the movie, but not as Two-Face until the next one (and there will be a next and a next and a next). If all these characters were competing against one another in a plot heavy non-action movie it would be enough, but in "The Dark Knight" they don't just compete with each other, they compete with a dozen or so big action sequences. One thing I felt was really missing from this movie was any sense that there were actually people (other than the ones on screen) in the city of Gotham. It all seemed like a great high-minded moral play with nothing at stake except Bruce and Harvey's conscience (and maybe some people on a boat). The crazed out editing seems to be a direct result of Gothams over-crowded nut-job population. Maybe in the next movie we can multiply our enemies again to include The Riddler, The Penguin, Catwoman, and Poison Ivy. And where's Robin in all this?

To me it seems like a good action/adventure movie will develop it's characters enough to the point where in a chase scene or fight scene, I actually have a vested interest in that action aside from whatever previous knowledge I've received from reading comic books.

As a side note: The scene in which Batman is in the under-construction high rise made virtually no sense to me. I'd guess that roughly 80% of the time I had no clue what I was looking at, or who, or where. I guess Batman needed that night vision stuff, because he would have had the same problem otherwise.

I interpreted the Rachel/Harvey rescue scene like this: B-Man decided that Harvey ultimately mattered more to Gotham, and he made the (difficult) decision to put his city above his romantic notions. If you want to get darker, maybe he decided that if he couldn't have her, neither could Harvey.

When people ask me what I thought of the film, I say it was "Too much". Overlong, overloud, overhyped, overcomplicated, overindulgent. I am completely shocked it was so well-received, but then again I remember my 8th grade classmates liking "Footloose" quite a bit...

"The Dark Knight" joins the ranks of "fast-paced long movies" for me, like "Boogie Nights," "GoodFellas," "Pulp Fiction," "Casino" and "Magnolia" (the last one I saw in the theater, twice, and it's the fastest 6 hours I've ever spent!)...

This was an immensely entertaining and thought-provoking action epic and in its way, it fills and uses its long running time to its advantage.

"One thing I felt was really missing from this movie was any sense that there were actually people (other than the ones on screen) in the city of Gotham."

Really? I thought it was the exact opposite. To me, it felt like this was the first comic-book-derived "superhero" film to actually give the citizens of the town a presence and will of their own. Some of the big action sequences are set late at night, on nearly deserted streets, but aside from that, this city feels very populated to me. The sequences involving the Wayne Enterprises exec who's ready to spill Batman's true identity, and has to be rushed away springs instantly to mind. As does the police parade, the sequence involving the lynched faux-Batman, the various press conferences, outside the hospital during the evacuation, and, of course, the ferry boat scene. Really couldn't disagree more on this point. And, like I said, common citizens are usually treated as virtual cardboard cut-outs (in Spider-Man, typically screaming) in these films...I didn't feel that to be the case here.

As for editing, the only somewhat jarring one for me was the quick cut to the next day after Joker crashes the party (though, obviously, he just left...he mentioned later in the film that he actually thought that Batman WAS Harvey, given how he dived after Rachel, so there was no reason to stick around...he'd missed his chance). I just think Nolan's all about lean storytelling, and I feel he lingered on the large majority of crucial shots more than enough. I can't imagine a Batman film made by Michaelangelo Antonioni being all that satisfying. But that's me.

Is it just me or did Ledger at times seem to be channeling Michael Keaton's Beetlejuice? "I'm a a man of my word," et al. Holy franchise predecessor, Batman!

DK could have definitely benefitted from being split into two parts and thus allowed certain emotional, and just plain aesthetic, moments time to breathe. The sudden reappearance of a character, mentioned in the first comment here, as well as the central event that creates Two-Face, needed much more of an impact rather than the relentless, headlong treatment that so many of the film's scenes get. That works for the opening, and for the criminal gathering, even the penthouse attack even though that clearly ended before it should have; I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the first face-to-face encounter between the Joker and Bats? Needed a lot more follow-through.

"I don't remember feeling this way about "Batman Begins.""

Strange. Your complaints about the shots and sequences feeling "rushed and truncated" were precisely why I thought Batman Begins didn't work. But it's more complicated than that: it's that there just wasn't enough gravity and emotion behind Nolan's thematic concerns and enourmous plot to justify the fast, abrupt directing and editing.

Maybe it had something to do with reading prior to seeing the film that Nolan was inspired by Blade Runner. I came in expecting something slow and moody, and that wasn't what I got. I thought, "Why doesn't he just cut some of this plot crap and give us some atmosphere?".

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, felt so momentous and intense - like there was so much at stake - that Nolan's snappy direction managed to sustain the chaotic, "escalating", vibe. It felt right.

Some folks in the comments compared this one to The Departed, which also had a fast, relentless pace. Jim didn't care much about it. No Country for Old Men is a slow, formally precise, indolent thriller that manages to spellbind us by taking its time. Jim loved it. Hmmm...

Also, people complaing about the thematic blutness of The Dark Knight (which I didn't really mind; The Joker recognizing his role as a "force of chaos" just made him seem smarter, self-aware, and therefore more threatening) should remember two years ago when The Prestige came out and was dismissed by a good deal of critics as "an intricate and elaborate machine designed for the simple purpose of diversion" (A.O. Scott).

If you manage to create one of the most complex and profound (and elegant) screenplays of the decade so far, and you're getting clueless responses like the one above, I can see why you'd want to be blunt.

For me the movie got off to a bad start with the opening bank robbery scene. Routine and unimaginative, like the beginning of any shoot-em' up. Frankly I was starting to nod off during the first half hour or so. And Jack summed up perfectly the problem with the last act: Just save Two-Face for the sequel, or leave his fate open-ended. And if his story ends with this movie,then why can't he see Batman unmasked for crying out loud?! That's a whole missed story arc. Otherwise what's the point of the love triangle with Rachel?

Jim, I think Jonathan Nolan said in the Creative Screenwriting Q&A (http://creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-q.html) that the Joker did fool Batman re: the bomb set up.

Watching The Dark Knight I realized why I love comics so much. You can just fall right into a panel and spend the whole day exploring every detail the batcave if you like. Somehow, there's a sense of semi-permanence to the characters and settings in a comic book, you can feel like you live in Wayne Manor, where if a movie goes too fast, it feels like you're just taking a quick tour. If the scenes in The Dark Knight just had some more breathing room, it'd be a much better movie (not that I don't already like it, but yeah).

Although I think The Dark Knight was Brilliant if grim,I did have other criticisms and that is that the film was rushed and the plot kept developing very quickly.I think the film's screenplay was short on subtlety.I also think that the villains were not as well developed as they were in Batman Begins because I didn't feel there was much depth created in Harvey Dent/Two Face and The Joker and I thought that Ras Al Ghul,Scarcrow and Carmine Falconi seemed more fleshed out.

Thanks for putting a name to the indescribable sensation I had watching TDK. I enjoyed the movie even as I felt uneasy while watching it, mainly due to pace.

I figured the culprit was the sheer number of action/suspense sequences. Whereas "Iron Man" and "Incredible Hulk" both used a structure with 3 (or 3 1/2) tent poles, TDK has 10, by my count.
-the opening heist
-Batman reintroduction
-Hong Kong
-assassinations / penthouse confrontation
-sniper sequence
-truck chase
-jail break / Sophie's choice
-hospital bombing
-ferry hostages / Joker showdown
-Two-Face showdown

With so many sequences, I lost count while watching the movie, because I was expecting a 3-5 tentpole structure.

Note that most of these sequences are all about the build-up. That could explain the "truncated" feeling, since the abrupt endings are preceding by lengthy set-ups.

Maybe I'm completely wrong, and sorry if someone else has mentioned this, but doesn't anyone else suspect there will be a Director's Cut DVD of The Dark Knight that will be, say, 20-30 minutes longer and address a lot of the issues raised here?

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who actually felt the proceedings were quite rushed, and while I liked the film overall, I couldn't help having the impression the film was edited within an inch of its life to stay at 2 and 1/2 hours and not a minute more. Maybe Nolan was contractually obliged to meet this running time? I dunno, but I'd be really surprised if a lot of scenes/shots/sequences did go on a bit longer in a three hour cut.

Another aspect that breezed right by me (SPOILER!): when Gary Oldman discovers one of the cops on the take with the joker, he exclaims, "Ramirez!" For ten minutes, I was like "Who the hell's Ramirez?" until she was onscreen again, when I said, "Oh yeah, her." And again, I suspect this character had at least a little more screen time in discarded earlier scenes and might have registered more in a longer cut.

"The Joker most definitely switches the addresses around on Batman, telling him Rachel is at the one Harvey is, knowing from earlier (in the penthouse scene) that he would go to save her, thus crushing him in some way by forcing him to save Harvey instead."

This raises the question of whether or not the Joker tells the truth to the people on the two ferries, as to which one each detonator is wired for.

I agree with some of the comments that have been made in defense of the editing....I'm sure there is an extended edition available in archives somewhere with all of the truncated scenes restored to their full length, and each scene resolved in a way that will please most people who criticize the film's pacing. But Nolan must have made a conscious decision to shorten all of these scenes, and the best reason for that, I suppose, would be to create this sense of urgency, fear, and panic. I would argue that it works on this emotional level, so whether or not the editing works is - and I hate using this cop-out - a matter of taste. Some people just prefer movies with long shots, like There Will Be Blood, Citizen Kane, and In Bruges. I'm not presumptuous enough to claim that there is a right or wrong way to edit a movie, but this editing style did work for me, and I was not particularly confused at any point (except for a shot or two in the car chase, which suffered from Nolan's failure to establish which cars were in the tunnel and where, e.g., where did the garbage truck come from, and why should we care about it?)

Actually, Jim, from some of the comments you've made, it seems to me that you're much more concerned with the movie's thematic complexity (or lack thereof, as many perceive it). I'm not sure that the movie's themes are as repetitive as you indicate...it seemed to me that all of the characters state their own viewpoints, but they contrast in so many ways that we are left to draw our own conclusions on the movie's themes.

I would be very interested to see a post in which you explain your thoughts on the movie's thematic redundancy a bit more. That could raise some other questions about how a movie is supposed to divulge its thematic concerns, which is a topic that has haunted me for a very long time.

Preferably, for everyone who isn't a viral marketer, the next Batman will have a better, relevant, screenplay, a better director and better actors, especially as Batman. The major complaint, obviously, was the terrible, yet overhyped, movie, the atrocious directing, and the terrible, badly-cast, gay actors. If this were imdb there would be more viral marketers here. They're like the cheap hustler telemarketers and telephone technical support of internet media. The next Batman movie needs to be just plain better. Meaning, NO BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have preferred to have seen a movie of the same length with fewer subplots and more room to breath so we could soak up the good stuff. But I still loved The Dark Knight, and I dislike all the superhero movies. This topic reminds me how I felt when I first watched Scorsese's "Casino." It went by fast becaues so much happens. But it also felt long... because so much happens.

While I thought some of the editing was a little too fast (and the fight scenes in particular, confusingly so) I think the overall pace of the film was just fine right up to the central car chase, which - to me - felt like a natural climatic point. But then it went on. And on.
Once the Joker was out of the picture the film just seemed to drag for me (try as I might, I just couldn't get emotionally invested in Dent and when they finally resorted to the gun-against-the-cute-moppet's-head scene I'd had about enough).

I should take the time to read the other comments before I post this, but I'm just replying to the blog, so I'm agreeing with myself to be impatient (hint: irony, irony).

My friend and I have discussed this on prior occasions and to be frank it's a flaw I have felt in all of Christopher Nolan's movies: That they have the promise of some sense of foreboding and menace lurking beneath the frantic rush to the finish. That tension seems to characterise all of Nolan's movies, but to be perfectly frank, that's not the way I felt about "The Dark Knight", my favourite Nolan movie so far and a worthy successor to "Batman Begins" (which, though it impressed me, DID leave me with that rushed feeling).

I submit for your consideration that a second viewing of the film may help. I have no idea whether you have done this or not or whether it has helped, but I think Christopher Nolan has become a master of economic storytelling, putting as much into the mix and lingering on just the right moments to engage you on a pure storytelling level whilst zipping you along for the ride.

I also feel that Nolan has impoved as a director of action scenes. I hated the fact that he resorted to Jason Bourne style handheld moments in "Batman Begins", but in "The Dark Knight", I thought the action scenes had the coldness, clarity and authority of a James Cameron movie. I've gotten to a point where I don't want to question a movie's intentions witout seeing it more than once if I don't feel like I've gotten the full "deal". I won't see a movie again if I think it's just bad and I may see one again if it's great and I just enjoyed it so much the first time I want to see it again. But no matter what the pace, it's what the director does with it that always stands out to me.

BTW, I just read some of the other comments and I disagree that the movie doesn't linger on certain moments. Most of the scenes involving Heath Ledger's Joker with a knife to someone's mouth or a remote control in his hand, etc., those are great moments, and the man who holds the detonator in his hand - probably my favourite shot in the whole movie. And the heartbreaking final scene (watch it again and you see how the plot leads us to that moment).

"If "The Dark Knight" felt too long to you, or even if it didn't, is it possible that it might have felt shorter if it were longer?"

This question applies wonderfully to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. For a movie so short, it felt amazingly long. And not because I was bored - I enjoyed the film, even with its flaws. I haven't read the graphic novel version (which contains the elements that were cut out when Aronofsky got the second chance to make the film... on a smaller budget) but I can't help but wonder just how much better the film would have been if were longer.

There are moments in the film where scenes are very drawn out; Aronofsky has no problem lingering on a moment but he does so in only a few scenes. This isn't 2001 or Seven Samurai where the entire film has a consistent, drawn out pace. One of the problems is that the film is so repetitious that those drawn out moments come too close (in minutes) to the prior instance of the same/similar part of the film. The elongated scenes, especially towards the end, don't feel as though they completely belong; I don't think they earned the right to be that long and their length feels overly long when compared to the rest of the film. However, if the rest of the film had been edited in the same, drawn out style and if more footage had been filmed or simply left in, the added length probably would have resulted in a film that seemed shorter. I'm sure it would have made for a better film too. Ultimately, it's the inconsistent editing that damages the film the most.

For you not to understand the Dent-Dawes kidnap sequence, which is really quite easy to get, shows that you really don't understand the movie. It's impossible to take anything you write seriously when you can't pick up rather simple plot details. And then you credit your own inattentiveness to bad filmmaking on Nolan's part? Are you going out of your way to be a total joke?

I had another possible theory about the Harvey/Rachel rescue.

The Joker says (repeatedly), "I never lie." And throughout the movie, with only this exception, that proves to be the truth. The point being that the truth can cause just as much hurt as a lie, and the Joker takes pride in hurting people with what is actually going on, because humans so often put up blinders to reality as a defense mechanism. The Joker wants to tear these defenses down.

So my theory is that he gave instructions to his minions where to put each hostage, but they screwed it up and mixed up the locations. So the Joker really thought he was telling Batman the truth, but, as an agent of chaos, found it terribly funny regardless when he found out the tragic way the situation was resolved.

Or maybe he just thought the time was ripe for an opportunistically placed lie, being an unpredictable sociopath.

Ben McMaster

I completely agree with your post.

I would also like to urge people to take a look at the film a second time. Nolan's editing and style is what makes people come back for more. And when they do see it a second time they're not bored.

Just in case the doubts still lingers.

SPOILER ALERT!!! SPOILER ALERT!!!

Joker gives Rachel's address as Avenue X and Harvey's as 250, 52nd street. Batman rushes out of the door and towards the bike, when Gordon asks him for whom. Batman replies Rachel.

And Rachel was at 250, 52nd street.

I really find it amazing though, how did this turn out to be so confusing. It is right there. The first show I was watching (and I did watch the very first show), my fellow audiences let out a collective "whaaaat?" when the door opens and it is Harvey who is lying down. And immediately, within moments they did realise Batman had been tricked into a choice.
That helps because Joker's statement about choosing and breaking rules is just a few minutes before.

Speaking of which, Nolan is a giant narrative engine. It is curious why his every film demands multiple viewings. Is it because the story is too dense? But that can only be the surface trick, the shallow one, because audiences readily pay to watch his film again and they enjoy it even more.

Jim, please edit/add a SPOILER warning to the third comment. I didn't expect to read MAGGIE GYLLENHAAL DIED dropped in such a casual manner. It's just too soon!!!

I have a sneaking suspicion that Jim's going to keep offering up new blog entries nitpicking this film to death, simply because his other entries related to films such as Pineapple Express, which he labelled "genius" (?!), aren't generating much interest.

There's a reason The Dark Knight has garnered widespread critical praise and huge repeat business: because it's a damn fine film. Unlike most movies derived from comic books, this will stand the test of time, on virtually every conceivable level.

Kudos to one of the previous posters who pointed out that "The Prestige" is one of the richest, most intricately-detailed screenplays of the decade (not to be confused with a screenplay that is merely needlessly complicated). I love "The Prestige" more with each viewing, which only heightens my disappointment with "The Dark Knight" (which I still passably enjoyed, but nowhere near the level it is being praised at).

How can you be confused on whether or not the Joker was lying about the respective locations of Rachel and Dent? Batman flat-out tells Gordon that he's going after Rachel, but when he reaches the location as told to him by the Joker, he finds Dent there instead.

What's ambiguous about this? Or is your mind so caught up in ways to criticize this film that you're not even paying attention to what's going on?

For Michaela, specifically, but anyone, generally: are you in a hurry? Do you have somewhere better to be? Have our over-crowded 21st century lives gotten so needlessly cluttered that we can't spare more than 120 minutes and get lost at the cinema?

Or is it just that summer blockbusters must keep their bombastic silliness to 90 minutes, while long running times are reserved for mind-numbing, pseudo-artistic snooze-fests by Terrence Malick or the latest dross by Quentin Tarantino, displaying 10 minutes of razzle-dazzle ultra-violence interspersed with 30 minute chunks of useless, pointless, meandering dialogue?

I won't argue that Spiderman 3 and At World's End were clunky and overwrought (though I'd say Dead Man's Chest was actually far clunkier than World's End), or that a great many summer bang-fests are long on mindlessness and noise and short on real emotional and intellectual engagement. But please, don't pretend that there's some magical 'perfect length' for a film, be it summer blockbuster or indie prestige picture.

My point is this: as someone who loves cinema of all shapes and sizes, all you should want when you sit down in that theater is to get lost, and to stay lost for as long as possible. Maybe this is a personal peculiarity, because most of my favorite films are long (the directors cuts of LOTR's, Apocalypse Now, Braveheart, the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, The Seven Samurai), but when I'm enjoying a movie, I don't want it to end. I've seen The Dark Knight three times now, and every viewing has been just as fresh and vital as the last, and never taxed my patience.

When there's so much drek out there, how can you possibly complain about a thematically, narratively ambitious film that's dramatically compelling, viscerally exciting, and technically breathtaking?

Even with its flaws (and it has some), The Dark Knight is one of the best films I've seen in years. Let's not look a cinematic gift horse in the mouth and complain just because it takes us away from our cell phones and our instant messaging for an extra hour or so, 'kay?

As I watched TDK I also found myself wondering why some shots couldn't have been stretched out...why the camera wasn't allowed to linger just a bit longer. There is some great imagery in this film (the burning tower of money, Joker sticking his head out of the police cruiser's window like a dog) that would have been more residual if it simply was allowed a longer time to reside on screen.
I was especially burned by this during the 18-wheeler ambush setpiece. In the trailer for TDK there was a great shot of the Joker flinching, nearly tumbling backwards from the recoil of firing an RPG. Yet when I saw TDK in the theater those additional recoil moments were gone (I have only seen TDK once in the theater so perhaps I blinked and missed it). But TDK did win my favor back during the Joker's detonation of the hospital. The camera follows the Joker as he triggers first a set of stifled explosions. Then after fumbling around with the detonator, a bigger explosion is triggered, sending the Joker gleefully running to the yellow school bus. If you look close you can even see the hyped-up Joker through the bus windows hitting the seat in front of him as it drives off. The whole sequence reminded me of that little kid who messes around and then runs off when he breaks a window.

I completely agree here. Sadly I've yet to see "The Dark Knight" (what, am I the only one on the planet to have waited this long?), but the quick-cut obsession in modern movie-making drives me ever back to older, more classy ones. It seems every movie these days has so little confidence in the skill of its cinematographer and/or art department that few shots are really allowed to register; everything from the Lord of the Rings to the Bourne series to romantic comedies has it. But we do get a few special ones here and there, that really know the value of an image. Take the beautiful, dreamlike shots in "The Secret of Roan Inish" back in 1994, or the lyrical "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." Or even, I'd say, the way the first "Pirates of the Carribbean" actually pulled back and let us watch the fun choreography in the sword fights. Let's hope more directors realize the qualities that made films like these work so much better than the standard, run-of-the-mill manipulations that keep getting churned out.

it's funny that Robert Downey Jr. said the Dark Knight is too sophisticated when he himself tends to sound so sophisticated

This could easily have been two movies, with a few more scenes: End on Dent's rescue, and open the second in the holding cells.