As we've been saying in our opening sentences, The Dark Knight is huge, propulsive, epic, knocks you flat on your fanny and kisses your mom and drinks all your bourbon and punches you in the taint, etc. I haven't been this overwhelmed by a genre film's scope since I snuck into a midnight Fellowship of the Ring preview screening for theater employees back in 2001, having no idea what to expect...Spoilers are included after a particular red line.
In fact, Dark Knight spends so much time with so many large and small characters, it sometimes feels like one of those phone-book-thick novels where characters from all strata of society tragically collide. (I've been jokingly calling it "James Michener's Gotham," though of course Frank Miller did the multiple-characters urban-tapestry thing in The Dark Knight Returns.) Gotham is the object of everyone's affections. And the love is largely unrequited.
But what really interests me about The Dark Knight is what co-writer/director Christopher Nolan doesn't do. This may be the first superhero sequel that's less outlandish, gadget-heavy and effects-choked than its predecessor.
And here's
leonardpart6's review of the film:Yet even as a jumbled parade of epic excess, The Dark Knight is a remarkable cinematic experience. The film effortlessly picks up where Batman Begins left off in terms of its depiction of Gotham City; these are the movies grown-up Batman fans have longed to see, intelligent, mature interpretations of the superhero’s universe, with an interest in the psychology of costumed vigilantes and deformed supervillains.