I'm not sure THE DARK KNIGHT is a bad movie, but it certainly feels like a racist movie, doesn't it? African-American characters in this film fall into three categories: Gangsta thugs, buzzard bait, and Morgan Freeman. (I know, I know: Welcome to Hollywood.) Yet in the comics, Harvey Dent is an African-American politician with a distinct if unintentional resemblance to Barack Obama -- both conceal (or at least Obama seems to conceal) barely suppressed rage beneath superficial placidity. (And Obama's most fervent netroots supporters have already hauled out the "Two-Face" label over the FISA bill.) In any case, it's no surprise that Hollywood has run screaming from yet another three-dimensional African-American character, and although Aaron Eckhardt is good in the part (even better, I'd say, than Heath Ledger's Joker), I can think of half a dozen African-American actors who could have handled the part just as well without compromising the character.

(Oh, and it doesn't help that the film's sole Asian character -- a corrupt Chinese businessman -- comes across like Fu Manchu without the mustache, or a spine. But the Chinese connection does give Eckhardt and director Nolan the chance to toss some Lou Dobbs-worthy "made in China" one-liners into a courtroom scene -- all of which, when I saw THE DARK KNIGHT, drew loud cheers from the audience.)

I saw The Dark Night at midnight last night, and Stephanie's comments pretty much echo mine exactly. Being a Hitchcock fanatic myself, those comparisons/contrasts particularly hit home. I think I liked the movie overall a bit more than she did, but not much.

Ledger is amazing, though. The movie is worth seeing almost for him alone.

QUOTE: "I'm not sure THE DARK KNIGHT is a bad movie, but it certainly feels like a racist movie, doesn't it? African-American characters in this film fall into three categories: Gangsta thugs, buzzard bait, and Morgan Freeman. (I know, I know: Welcome to Hollywood.) Yet in the comics, Harvey Dent is an African-American politician with a distinct if unintentional resemblance to Barack Obama -- both conceal (or at least Obama seems to conceal) barely suppressed rage beneath superficial placidity. (And Obama's most fervent netroots supporters have already hauled out the "Two-Face" label over the FISA bill.) In any case, it's no surprise that Hollywood has run screaming from yet another three-dimensional African-American character, and although Aaron Eckhardt is good in the part (even better, I'd say, than Heath Ledger's Joker), I can think of half a dozen African-American actors who could have handled the part just as well without compromising the character."

Timothyhulsey, you are clearly incorrect on one point, and arguably bizarre on another.

First, 'in the comics' Harvey Dent is decidedly NOT African-American. He is Caucasian, and always has been. He has been portrayed on film as African-American once - in Burton's original Batman - by Billy Dee Williams.

Thus, 80% of your weird diatribe means nothing. More interesting is your implied (wrongful) argument that because Dent is a black man in comics, he should be played by a black man in the film. Since Dent is clearly white in the comics, doesn't that automatically mean, according to your logic, that a white man should play him? And isn't that focus on skin color over ability just a little bit....racist?

As for your bizarre Dent/Obama comparisons, the less said the better. I am no "Obamaniac," and remain a committed independent, so I have no partisan motivation when I say that your reference to the "barely suppressed rage beneath superficial placidity" is ludicrious and baffling.

Thanks for refering us back to the big Bat Bible, clearly timothy should be sued for Bat libel.

You've got a good gripe, now if you could just get a life.

This is going to be a sensational movie, I already know! I'm going to see it tonight after work. Heath Ledger has always been a great actor and will be forever missed. Morgan Freeman is by far one of my favorite and most convincing actors, I saw a few pictures from the movie at Urban Thought Collective's website. http://urbanthoughtcollective.com/gallery/freeman/

Is TDK a great movie? Well, that's not for me to say. But I've seen it, and I think it's at least as good as Mann's HEAT, and possibly as good as Scorsese's THE DEPARTED. It's true that it has some implausible plot developments, and that some scenes leave the audience to supply their own conclusions. It's true that some characters make unlikely statements only to set up other, more "profound" lines. But this is not a movie in which you should expect anything else. TDK is firmly in the film noir tradition -- it works excellently as a crime drama -- and equally firmly in the tradition of the comic books on which it's based. What it does it does very well. Why insist on bringing to it any expectation of any other kind of movie -- particularly any of Hitchcock's?

Stephanie has a tradition of disliking movies that take themselves seriously and of using the word "humorless" as a pejorative. I can't say how familiar she is with film noir, comics, or Batman lore (but she obviously thinks Batman's butler's name is "Arthur.") In my view, Stephanie, this movie is not for you. That's okay. No movie is for everyone. But you should know your limitations. When Ebert reviewed SEX AND THE CITY, earlier this summer, he began his review with the words, "I am not the person to review this movie." Perhaps you should try this same tactic; it's the honest thing to do.

Paul: "Xrandadu Hutman asked Klytus: 'Which is the best version of "Blade Runner"? The theatrical release, the director's, or the final cut?' The theatrical release is the best. The others eliminated Ford's voiceovers (which are intregal, IMO, to understanding the movie). Do I get to be a movie geek too?"

Thanks for answering! FYI, I agree totally. Some of the voice-overs are a little clunky (like Harrison Ford's explanation that M. Emmet Walsh's character "is the kind of guy who used to call black people n***ers" because he refers to replicants as "skin jobs"), but the movie barely makes sense without them and the Director's Cut doesn't tighten the editing to fill the empty spaces where the narration went. The sound mixing is also awkward without the narration.

The director's cut also omits the part where Rutger Hauer sticks his thumbs in Tyrell's eye sockets, and it takes out the "Shining" aerial footage at the end, so the last scene is a lame image of Deckard and Rachel getting in an elevator, with no narration or other implication of where they're going.

I thought the "Deckard is a replicant" idea was interesting, but they used a clunky approach with the unicorn dream sequence, which looks like an out-take from "Willow" or something (maybe it is!).

I think the Final Cut might have brought back the narration, but I am not 100% sure. At the very least I know they edited down the Zhora-running-through-glass scene so it's less obvious that she's a stuntwoman with a really bad frizzy wig.

Yeah, I am a nerd. Thanks for answering!