A conceivable title for the new movie could have been Batman: Resurrection due to the force and passion that director Christopher Nolan has infused into the latest franchise installment. The late Heath Ledger had some pretty large clown shoes to fill with Jack Nicholson's last Joker performance but Ledger portrayed the darkest, most sinister side of the Joker ever captured on film. Ledger's performance alone is worth the price of admission.

Call it whatever you want--too long, too loud, too dark, too hyped, and you wouldn't be entirely wrong on all counts, but whatever you do, don't call "The Dark Knight" a superhero movie. Christopher's Nolan's unsettling follow-up to 2005's "Batman Begins" is a lot of things, visually stunning and deeply resonant, but will leave you feeling a little anxious, possibly depressed and certainly terrified. Emergency trips to therapists are made from experiences such as this, and that's precisely what one does during TDK: experiences, rather than watches.

Anybody who has ever studied physics is aware of Newton's law which states "for every action, there is an equal but opposite re-action." This is exactly how The Dark Knight opens. Gotham's criminals, having been run down by Batman's (Christian Bale, solid as ever) renegade acts of "heroism", are desperate to regain the upper hand and in attempting to do so turn to The Joker, (the late Heath Ledger, so wholly immersed the part he's unrecognizable) a character who is less a villain and more a physical manifestation of anarchy. He's what Sid Vicious might have been like if Sid Vicious didn't want money, power, women, or fame.

The Joker has no earthly desires and therefore no limitations. A creature who wreaks havoc and destroys whatever comes into his path, he finds what in his warped brain must pass for a playmate in Batman.

Not that everyone involved is so pessimistic. Aaron Eckhart, as the doomed Harvey Dent, provides a necessary hopefulness for Gotham's future that Bruce, Batman, and the rest of the city need to believe in to preserve some sense of optimism. Maggie Gyllenhaal steps in for Katie Holmes and is a welcome change, acting as both a rock for Dent and a moral compass for Batman.

But I'm getting side-tracked. What the Joker wants is for Batman, his equal but opposite, to break free of the rules that tie him to society and become the "freak" that he believes bonds them together forever. In intentionally provoking him to act on these impulses, the Joker sends Batman into an identity crisis of sorts, wondering what kind of monster he has to become in order to do the right thing, and recognizing how blurred the line between right and wrong truly is.

In the end, The Dark Knight is a film that raises a lot of profound questions, some of which have no clear answers. It's psychologically disturbing on a fundamental level. Oh, and yes, Ledger steals the show, but thankfully, not the focus of the movie. That part falls on Eckhart's able shoulders, whose Dent has an arc that plays out like something out of a Greek tragedy (in a good way, I swear).

So if you're looking for a head-scratching, mind-warping thriller, park your ass in a seat as soon as you get a chance, but if you're looking for a popcorn flick, go see "Iron Man" instead.

Everytime a movie has too much hype surrounding it, I'm afraid to see it. Thankfully, the Dark Knight lives up to its hype, despite its star's accidental suicide in this past January.

Heath Ledger gives his most explosive performance of his short career...literally. As the darkest joker to date, Heath completely transforms himself into a serial psychopath, complete with pencil tricks and a disturbing nervous ticks.

Christian Bale, on the other hand, makes a better Clark Kent than Batman; his clean-shaven, suavve persona isn't quite a shoe-in to be Gotham's knight in skin-tight armor. While attempting to upkeep Batman's trademarks of fear, bravery,and all things that go bump in the night, the false baratone put on by Bale seems a tad overdone.

Plot twists, though, keep the Dark Knight from being another run of the mill superhero flick.

Having "lived" - at times knowingly, and at others unwittingly - with The Dark Knight for the last few years, many Chicagoans might have been gratified by Christopher Nolan's recent statement that Gotham has always been Chicago in his mind. But others have not been so pleased, either with Nolan's views or his vision as realized in this second entry into the Batman mythos.

As a life-long Chicagoan with unholy love for her city, I was never likely to be among the balkers in the first place. Nonetheless, the whole tone, look, and feel of The Dark Knight constitute an elegant defense of Nolan. As heartbreakingly beautiful as I find Chicago to be every minute of my life, Dark Knight does for Chicago what Disney's Meet the Robinsons did for my relationship with the work of William Joyce: It's a walk through a familiar landscape with someone who defies belief in revealing dark and beautiful and terrifying new things about it.

There's no question this is the Joker's movie as much as it is Batman's, but it's Gotham's, too, and in being Gotham's it makes each citizen therein a hero, a villain, a victim, and a savior. The view of Gotham and Gotham's citizenry isn't just the wild blue yonder visible from Bruce's penthouse, it's the Gordons' squalid back porch, it's the subterranean cells of the Major Crime Unit. Moreover, it's all of those views pieced together, crazily by the Joker, bleakly by the Batman, with a clear vision of right by Dent, and however they can be made to fit by people desperately trying to keep themselves and those dear to them safe and whole from sun up to sun down.

Without at all being dark and tangled as the Gotham of Batman Begins so wonderfully is, Dark Knight's Gotham is clotted, congested, slow, sluggish, and heaving with life, by day and by night. Without drawing attention to the device, Nolan is having some fun with how superheroes and villains can get a damned thing done when they're hung up in traffic or trying to get past the knot of morons having deep and meaningful conversations at the foot of the escalator.

hey the dark knight was the first movie in a long time, where it was worth going to the actual theater and watching it. i know everyone thought it was better than citizen cane and the godfather combined but i think that's just bc people are now used to watching 80 movies where ben stiller or jack black gets the pretty girl for no reason.

and can people stop saying they are a huge comic book fan and read them growing up. hello thats everyone now! ok now on to the movie, the only person who was acting in the movie was mr. brokeback and everyone else was there to collect there check, just like in spiderman 3, except no one was acting in that one.

i know i am in the minoirty here but i think they gave the 2face a larger role bc health died in real life. i know i will get 500 hate comments for that line but thats how i feel on the subject.

and i was high fiving myself when bubble boys sister died, bc please i didnt spend my money to watch batman cry over a boring looking woman.

and where is batman in all of this? not only was he not in the title of the movie but there were scenes when i was screaming in the front row, where is batman. or other scenes where batman was there but he wasnt allowed to talk. this is why i liked batman begins better, bc it was about batman not 2face shooting the guy from best of the best part 3.

worth watching if you love batman and don't want to take care of your kids for 3 hours. love always mark

ps if one more person does a joker impersonation, i will punch them in the face.

Yeah, Great Batman film, but not enough Batman. Yeah, Heath Ledger was the best part. Yeah, it could have been a lot shorter.

and YEAH, Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon) is HOTTT!

It was a great film. One could tell that the director put a lot of heart and passion into making this film, and so did the actors. First of all, let me just say that Heath Ledger's performance was phenomenal. It is too bad that such a great talent had to go so soon. He was so in tune with the character of the joker, you really couldnt even see one trace of heath ledger. It almost was as if it was the joker playing himself, and not an actor. As far as the other actors, they were very good as well. But Heath Ledger's role as the Joker stole the screen and the hearts of the audience. Great movie. Great effects. Great acting. Runs a little long, but personally felt it go fairly fast. I give it 4.5 stars.

"The Dark Knight"? Maybe the movie should have been re-titled "The Joker Revisited" as the theatrics display an unforgettable portrayal of Heath Ledger's boundless acting ability and skill, he was definitely a master of his craft - kudos to all who can appreciate his character!

Comicbookmovie.com heard a rumor that WB (that’s Warner Bros) is interested in casting the legendary One-named singer as the Catwoman for Batman III the movie. They have a Poll asking the good nerds of comicbooksville (me) what we think of Cher being cast. www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/4981.asp

my blog: http://blog.culturemob.com/batman-iii-cher-as-catwoman

I can't stand his blathering, befuddled, what-to-do?, mousey, stupid idiot schtick, in any movie. Ever. Never. I have tried, many times, like with pate- everyone says its great with critical acclaim, but I just cannot stomach the disgusting liver taste. Or the pate.