Let me start off by saying that I hated this film. However, I'm giving it a fair rating anyway. As an avid comic-book fan, I've had the pleasure of seeing almost all of the comic book adaptations that have seen the light of the day (so far). And almost all of the films have been at least a worthwhile trip. Ironically, the highest rated comic book adaptation of all time, the film I'm reviewing right now, is pretty damn far down on that list. Everything that Burton did right in "Batman", Nolan did wrong in "TDK". TDK takes itself way too serious. I think Nolan missed the point of "comic"-book. Comic, as in, amusement and entertainment. TDK is neither. It tries so hard to be a smart crime film, but to me it's just a bloody mess. The hero-villain confrontations simply falls flat, like a gum that lost it's flavor.

Then there was the action sequences, which was entertaining enough to watch. But you know there's something wrong with the movie when you're only enthralled by the action sequences. The car chase sequence felt totally out of place, reminded me more of a trailer for a Fast and the Furious reboot. Then there was the cell phone gag, which felt totally out of place as well. "Gotham City" in TDK did nothing to me. There was nothing Gothic about it. Just an ordinary Hollywood city. Burton's portrayal of Gotham City in "Batman" was simply priceless. The atmosphere was just so good, the cinematography and editing were spot on. His Gothic approach to this kind of material is probably the best ever, the only film coming close is Sin City. Burton did it all on a $48 million budget. Nolan had a $185 million budget and he failed to accomplish this task. Sadly, he didn't learn anything from his mistakes in Batman Begins, but I guess that didn't stop people from funding him.

Early Batman films were so fun to watch, and the actors that portrayed the villains, such as Jim Carrey, Jack Nicholson and Tommy Lee Jones, had such a great time, and it showed. Let's discuss the actor portraying the Joker who people praised to the skies: Heath Ledger. I completely fail to see how his performance could have been better than Nicholson, let alone equally good. Some say they were in the same league. Some say that the late Ledger was better by far. But good 'ol Nicholson will always be the true Joker to me. His portrayal of the Joker is probably one of the most accurately portrayed comic-book villains translated to the big screen, ever (some plot lines regarding the Joker was changed but Burton kept the character pure and original). Every single movement he made reflected something of his character. Heath Ledger's Joker was just a mad dog, as stated so many times during the film. Nothing more. His motives are unknown. In the original film, we are fully aware of the Joker's motives, and through flashbacks, we learn how he became such a gruesome monster. He's so fun to watch, not to mention that he actually laughs. Heath Ledger never even smirks (wait, a Joker that doesn't even laugh?) He doesn't pull any rabbits out of his hat like Nicholson. He just blows things up. He's just a sadistic nihilist and not a complex, unpredictable villain formerly known as Jack Napier. I hated how Nolan changed this character completely, if it was at least half as accurate as the original Joker, it might had been more interesting.

Two-Face was an OK villain, but suffers from the same faults that the Joker had: he doesn't have any real motives! At least Tommy Lee Jones was fun to watch. We're never let into his head; at one point he is the good guy, and at the next he's the new villain. Why? The relationship between Rachel and Two-Face was laughable, the fact that he wanted to die for her was ridiculous. The fact that he wanted to blame everyone for Rachel's death, and use "chance" as an excuse for killing people was laughable. I wanted to know what happened in between. The characters in this film are simply not developed enough, which makes them boring and uninteresting. This problem wouldn't be as big if the movie didn't solely rely on (failed) tension and atmosphere. Without adding a pinch of entertainment, which is what a true comic book adaptation should include, the movie falls flat. And it doesn't have to be ha-ha entertainment, Sin City had both atmosphere and action, and succeeded at both; The Dark Knight had failed atmosphere and little action. Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman all provide great screen presence, as always. And then there's Christian Bale, an otherwise excellent actor, who lost a lot of credibility to me after taking on the role of "Batman". What an awful choice. What a cringe-worthy performance. Keaton is without a doubt, the best Batman so far, while the rest are circus clowns compared to him.

As a final conclusion, I cannot recommend this film. Lacking elements that a real comic book adaptation should have, such as visual effects and accurately portrayed villains that are actually interesting to watch, the only redeeming values are some of the actors who did an OK job, and a few of the action scenes, notably the sequence at the beginning. Christopher Nolan is a great director, who still manages to show his skills in this film, but sadly, the benefits are for naught. The film succeeds a few times at creating, stylish, tension scenes, but those few tense scenes are far from enough from what this film could have (and should) have been. "The Dark Knight" was a huge disappointment to me, and should have been a huge improvement upon Batman Begins. I'm glad I didn't see this film with high expectations.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 7.