Customer Reviews

The Dark Knight

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Dennis O'Neil did a good job at writing this movie novelization. It was written around Feb 2008 so it closely follows the final script. Unlike the Superman Returns novel, don't expect much more than what's shown on the big screen.

No huge differences except more character development (histories are explored more in depth). The major differences from the movie are 1.) Dent's adolescent history is explored by an undercover Wayne and 2.) we learn what Scarecrow did in between both movies.

Ledger's stunning Joker character was not captured well in the novel. You'll have to watch the movie for that treat!

Depending on your reading speed and comprehension, you should be able to finish the book in 2 to 3 hrs (about the same length as of the movie).

Dennis "Denny" O'Neill has been one of the principal architects for Batman over the past thirty years, doing everything from comic writer to editor to novelization author. His adaptation of Batman Begins was quite solid, so I had high hopes for this, which I read--and recommend you read ONLY--after seeing the movie.

Put bluntly, the master is either losing his touch or rushed this into print. Despite being one of the sources for the characterization of the Joker, O'Neill fails to capture any of Ledger's manic intensity, the deep depravity, and utterly chaotic nature of his violent streak. Granted, Ledger's portrayal is stunning and hard to capture with the written word, but O'Neill should do better with a character he revitalized back in the 1970s (The Joker's Five Way Revenge, for instance).

There is very little back story added, so much of what remains unexplained in the movie is unexplained here. There's a back story added for Harvey Dent, but I'm not sure whether it actually explains anything beyond what the movie does. It does make Bruce's affection for Rachel Dawes more understandable: It is less love than a deep need for her, he is almost creepy in his obsession for her.

Obviously, the action scenes are hard to put into writing, so I forgive O'Neill for making the finale of the movie so condensed (and leaves out the climactic scene in all the trailers of Gordon smashing the Batsignal). However, he inexplicably fails to capture the intensity of the scene inside the ferries at the end of the movie.

The book would be shorter if it did not begin with about 60 pages dealing with material from Batman Begins or the animated Gotham Knight.

That the book was rushed is indicated, I think, by glaring typos that made it seem as though it was scanned in from a typewriter or pages. For instance, in one sentence the "real deal" (referring to the real Batman rather than the wanna-bes" reads as "red deal." Things like this are irritating but also indicative of a broader on-the-cheap feel of the whole novelization.

Of course, without the DVD, this is your only shot, since DC isn't releasing a comic book adaptation.

This book is abysmal. It's poorly written, shallow and feels rushed. A lot of the subtle moments from the film are totally removed , (for example, the tone of the Jokers voice, his walk, just how terrifying he is - all these details add up to make a mental picture in your mind which is part of what reading fiction is all about. O'Neil describes none of them, the Joker could be a postman for all the info we get.)

We get no inclination about how the characters are feeling, or how they do things - much of the dialogue from the film is reported with little emotion and it feels as if Denny O Neil was rushing his way through the Nolan script in order to meet a tight deadline. The action scenes are dull and overall the writing just feels stale, it doesn't jump off the page at all.

A sample of the turgid prose - he describes Comissioner Leob's death as '...he made a few gurgling sounds and within seconds was dead.' Talk about sucking the drama out of a scene.

There's also page after page of boring exposition. Fair enough, the story of what Crane got up to after 'Begins' is a neat inclusion, but it bogs down the book and gets in the way of the actual TDK story. O' Neil seems to do this for more than one of the characters, even the infodump for Bruce Wayne is annoying. The events of the film don't begin until you're a quater of the way through the book, the first couple of chapters should've been called 'In case you haven't read Batman Begins...'

Poor. Only gets a star because I'm a Batman fanatic, otherwise I would've stopped reading it after the first chapter.

The Dark Knight turned out to be one of the best sequels in both comic book and cinematic history, one could even construct a convincing and legitimate argument for it bein the best in the former's. On screen it is fantastic, a whirlwind of a storyline that takes you through twists and turns with most of the movie feelng like the climax. It is, to say the least, one of the best movies I have ever seen. So I was expecting a lot from this book. The book is in itself not that badly written, it is a solid structure with above average literary prowress, but it is simply bland at some point. The author doesn't give as much back story to the characters and hidden motives not shown in the movie as he should have. The action scenes are shabbily written and the parts in the movie that were so exhilerating are subparly portrayed in the book. Not a bad read, but the movie is far better.

After seeing "The Dark Knight" in the theater, I was extremely impressed with the quality of the story. There were wonderful characters that were beautifully executed and action sequences that were awesome. It did things no other super hero movie had done before (or could ever do). Naturally, I couldn't wait to get my hands on a copy of "The Dark Knight" in paperback. After reading the first few chapters, I came to this conclusion:

It was awful.

I was really angry that this Oscar-worthy movie earned such a worthless piece of cr*p. The story doesn't deserve Dennis O'Neil's writing at all.

The writing is so blah. It doesn't give any descriptions of what the characters are thinking (like novels are SUPPOSED to do). It simply gives dialouge with out expression and descriptions that are the quality of stage directions.

Folks, it's the screenplay in Times New Roman with added quotation marks.

The confusing thing was that Batman Begins (the book adaptation by the same author) was great!

If you do read this book, playback the movie in your head while reading the dialouge. It's the only way you'll get anything out of this book.

I'm not sure who hired Dennis O'Neil, but they made a horrible descision.

The first few pages recap what happened in Batman Begins. However, the novel takes a while before it starts with the events of the Dark Knight. The novel contains only two new scenes; one detailing how Scarecrow escaped and what he was doing in the meantime leading up to his appearance in The Dark Knight. The second scene is a little more interesting; it's about Bruce looking up info on Harvey Dent and this gives us some background on Dent. However, most of the characters in the novel are just names attached to big blocks of dialogue.

The characters have "dialogue vomit", i.e. they just spit out large blocks of dialogue at a time, without pausing, making a gesture or revealing their inner thoughts. When Dent is in the alley with Schiff, Harvey argues with Batman and says "you can't give in" but again it's simply dialogue with no emotion and no exclamation marks! Also it seems to me that there were extra big spaces in between paragraphs as if they were trying to make the book longer (it's 292 pages). Once you start reading this novel you get the idea that Dennis O' Neil was not allowed to see the film, didn't care or was too busy. I strongly suspect the first reason since he mentions this fact in the introduction. Also writing a novel based on a film is a difficult task since the writer is working from a script that changes during filming.

For example, during the mob meeting some of the lines are spoken by different characters. The final battle with the Joker is different. In the novel Batman simply ties him up while Joker just says his speech which was superbly delivered on screen. Because O'Neil was working from just a script he misses a lot of the memorable lines and gestures from the movie. The party crashing scene is an example of this. There is no sense of terror as the Joker threatens the guests. (One interesting point in the novel is that the Joker's "laugh" is a mixture of laughing and crying). However one feels nothing because there is context or realism throughout the novel.

However when Dennis O' Neil does write something it seems more like something that belongs in a comic book. For example, during the Dent fundraiser the Joker "tip toes" over to Rachel Dawes. In the novel the Joker tends to lean towards the cartoon Joker, and not the terrifying realistic Joker of the movie.

This book seems more like a transcript rather than a novel. The novel was completed on or before February 2008, while the film wasn't released until July 2008. I can't believe that in the age of the computer O'Neil couldn't delete, insert or rewrite some new lines. Perhaps he was too busy or maybe he couldn't see the finished movie but this is a poor novelization without any enthusiasm or style. The characters simply deliver their lines and that's it. There is no new insight into the characters or the story. Christopher Nolan has managed to bring Batman and his universe into the real world while Dennis O'Neil manages to bring it back into the comic book world. Save your money and just enjoy the movie instead.

Dennis O'Neil really knows his Dark Knight and this novelization of the movie adds substance even if you've seen the movie. You discover what happened to the Scarecrow in between the two movies and other bits that extends the movie's storyline. O'Neil captures the internal thoughts of Bruce Wayne/Batman, something that a movie can't quite do. Well done for a "novelization."

This book was not ment to be made into a movie, however it is based on one. The author seems to have written this book in a rush. The movie is much better, but for the essential Batman fan, this book explains some of the hidden details and background information that helps explain the movie in greater detail.

I read lots of movie novelizations. Now, books based on movies are never going to be award winners or be on any New York Times best list. But I still enjoy them. This book, however, was pretty poor.

Novelizations offer the one thing movies can't, what the characters are thinking. This book doesn't. It's just the dialogue and action. It seemed like I was reading sections faster than they happened on screen. It had everything the film did, but without the great performances or any internal dialogue it was plain uninteresting. This read more like a screenplay than a book.

Skip this book. See the movie. If you've seen it, see it again. If you're in the mood for a good book based on a successful movie read Incredible Hulk or Iron Man. The movie was fantastic, this book definitely was not.

When I had bought the book, Iwas expecting to be as well written as O'Neil's adaptation of Batman Begins and Batman: Knightfall, but was sadly disappointed. The novel is very bland and almost seems rushed. This is a serious decline in quality in O'neil's work. Here's hoping he is able to redeem himself. Still, the book gives a liitle more backround on characters from the film, specifically Harvey Dent and adds in some extra scenes that were most likely cut from the final version of the film.

Still, the book is decent enough, and any Batfan should pick it up just to have it in their Batcollection or for those who want a little more backround on events from the film..

PARTY ON, DUDES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!