To begin with a warning; if you are one of the rare few who have not already seen The Dark Knight as of Sunday; and wish to remain unspoiled; do not read this.
The Dark Knight, is, without doubt or dispute, the most anticipated movie of the summer--arguably ever--and, as the critical consensus is compiled, one of the best reviewed; in what could be described as an unanimous assault on reason and disinterest, hundreds of critics have marked it as the greatest "comic book movie" of all-time; and maybe even one of the greatest "crime dramas" to boot.
I saw it at Midnight, and I too, was absorbed in the hype--believing Christopher Nolan and his steady entourage of A-listers could do no wrong; I read the 11 (according to RottenTomatoes) negative reviews, and, in the back of my mind, not only didn't believe them, but pitied them--how can one dislike a Batman movie?
After seeing the film; I have changed my query--how can one like it?
To begin--an examination of The Dark Knight's alleged successes; its transcendence of assumed comic-book limitations; its grim rawness and expressively and exclusively dark tone; its ability to juxtapose superhero fantasy with realism; its already Oscar-bait performance from Heath Ledger; its deft writing from the Nolan brothers.
With these expectations in mind, finally, one must believe, a comic book movie that is not a formulaic blockbuster; finally, an imaginative, fantastical movie that takes place in a recognizable "real-world" setting.
But The Dark Knight is not this movie; it is not even close to this movie; it is the polar opposite of this movie.
Every bad film; like every hesitant fibber trying to "slip one by" an unassuming pigeon; has a "tell." A moment, or brief misstep, that tells the viewer, unequivocally, that the movie he is watching is not an intelligent one; a scene that unshrouds the film.
In The Dark Knight, this "tell," when I knew for sure that the movie would never recover, that it was surging downhill one-way, without hope for repentance, came about a half-hour in. Heath Ledger defenestrates Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Christian Bale, at work on his night job, soars out of the window to catch her--concluding in a high-velocity dive onto the top of a car, with enough force to cause it to cave in. Maggie Gyllenhaal, who, if she were interested in portraying any real woman, having just been harassed by a psychotic terrorist, and falling multiple stories onto a vehicle, would have had a mild nervous breakdown; at least some heavy breathing; most likely a scream; turns to Batman Bale and says, in a toying, mirthful voice, "Well, let's not do that again."
She ends it with a one-liner. How quaint.
The single most prevalent and corrosive flaw in modern Hollywood, and in its summertime movie machinery, is the replacement of genuine dialogue by the inclusion of placeholding one-liners; ending any awkward or dramatic situation with a single, disingenuous "joke" that reaches such high levels of obviousness and exhaustion that it could aptly be accompanied by a laugh track--a lame contrivance that generates laughter mechanically, no different from an illuminating "Applause" sign. The audience, like Pavlovian robots, recognize these lines as inclusions of humor; and laugh reflexively.
It is insulting to the audience; it indicates that we need everything spelled out for us, as uncomplex and direct as possible--it patronizes patrons.
But, that is simply the movie's "tell."
To understand the complete litany of failures, we must start (where else?) at the beginning.
The movie's opening heist has been called, by some critics (through blissful ignorance), disturbingly realistic; the most common name-check is Michael Mann. I enjoy Mann's work, for the most part, and so was looking forward to an opening scene that would set an impressive tone for the rest of the film.
The opening bank heist, in remarkable contrast, evolves with the farcicality of a video game cinematic; "Excuse me, honey, I'm making a withdrawal;" I haven't heard dialogue that unabashedly lame and uninspired outside of Nickelodeon cartoons; what was supposed to establish Nolan's framework of realism instead announces his ineptness when it comes to differentiating between bleakness and blandness. The clowns, which could've been dubbed by Mel Blanc for as absurd as they sound, banter back and forth before concluding in the disastrous "What bus driver?" before a school bus, at that exact moment, plows through the bank walls and runs him over.
Now, a certain level of the 'impractical,' shall we say, is to be expected in any movie of this genre--but Nolan fails because he is adamantly trying to jettison the genre--how can Nolan convince his audience that this is a serious film applicable to the 'real-world' outside Gotham when his opening setpiece erupts not just antically, but pretty damn stupidly.
Nolan upps himself in the next scene, which is Batman's introduction and is the first scene with the Caped Crusader's fisticuffs. In it, Bale battles with imposter Batmen, expendable mobsters, and Batman Begins supervillain, the Scarecrow.
The impostor Batmen are, I suppose, introduced as a starting point for the vigilantism angle the Nolan brothers are pursuing; but it's never followed up in the rest of the film--these "competitor" Batmen enter and exit in this very scene, indicating that the Nolan's, as we will see throughout, are more interested in packing the narrative as tightly as they can, coherence be damned.
The Scarecrow is also irrelevant to the rest of the movie; why he exists in this scene is, again, I suppose, as a wink to Batman fans who enjoyed Nolan's first redux--but why begin a film with an incongruity?
The 'mob' are a central plot point for about the first twenty or thirty minutes; and then, promptly, are eliminated from the screenplay until the end, at the film's drastically underachieving reach for closure. In fact, in retrospect, it's almost impossible to understand why the mob is introduced at all. Besides the fact that "mobsters" are standard issue for the 'crime drama' that Nolan claims this is, their inclusion is mystifying. The moneyman from Hong Kong is even paid a visit from Morgan Freeman and given ample screentime in the first act--where does this storyline lead? With him being sprung from a jail cell in the final twenty minutes, having not been mentioned or relevant in between.
The Joker's renegade terrorism would have made an entirely appropriate villain by himself; perhaps the 'mob,' who, unlike the Joker, are actually relatable to audience members was included in a vain attempt to reel the ludicrous film into the orbit of realism.
But it doesn't work, instead the Nolan's waste screentime (of which they have more than plenty) developing and introducing character's that have absolutely no impact on the story.
We are introduced also, in this scene, to Christian Bale v.2. (Cape Version). The Nolan's ultimate failure in this respect is somehow letting him speak the way he does--grating, asphyxiated vocals that reminisce the unbearable monotony of Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider. Every time he opens his mouth, the viewer reels.
As we continue throughout the movie, we become more acquainted with the inherent flaws of the screenplay, the most obvious being that nowhere, not a single scene in the entire two-and-a-half hour film, do two or more character's have a real conversation; instead, nuanced dialogue is replaced by a theatrical directness and overdramatization; every character appears to be have rehearsed a verbal thesis on good, evil, truth, justice, etc. It reminds me very much of No Fear Shakespeare; the Barnes and Noble study guides that translate Shakespearean dialogue into 'understandable' English for the mainly illiterate. A guide that blasphemously turns Hamlet's 'to be or not to be' soliloquy into:
"The question is: is it better to be alive or dead? Is it nobler to put up with all the nasty things that luck throws your way, or to fight against all those troubles by simply putting an end to them once and for all? Dying, sleeping—that's all dying is—a sleep that ends all the heartache and shocks that life on earth gives us—that's an achievement to wish for. To die, to sleep—to sleep, maybe to dream. Ah, but there's the catch: in death's sleep who knows what kind of dreams might come, after we've put the noise and commotion of life behind us. That's certainly something to worry about. That's the consideration that makes us stretch out our sufferings so long."
Every line in the Dark Knight suffers from the same painful didacticism, as if the Nolan's wrote an original script and then dumbed it down for mainstream audiences; a script that turned genuine dialogue into lines like "Endure. You can be the outcast. You can make the choice that no one else will face - the right choice. Gotham needs you," "Don't make me your only hope for a normal life," and any of risible taglines on anarchism.
This death of subtlety is even more apparent in the nearly incomprehensible action sequences; every time there is a bombing, there isn't just a bombing, there's an explosion the likes of which we haven't seen since Hiroshima. There is one scene where I actually thought The Dark Knight had, momentarily, reached something great. When Ledger's Joker walks out of a hospital, garbed as a nurse, dallyingly approaching with his hands in the air, as if to say, "I told you so," as windows explode, in sequence, behind him--glass flying out, smoke pouring out.
The scene, at first, was the perfect romance of realistic danger and superheroic evil; it was what the Nolan's had been trying to, and failing, up until then.
I thought about why the film was so much more present and immediate than the rest, and I realized that the hospital explosions were not overdone--it looked like what a blowing up a hospital would look like. It reminded me, very heavily, of Children of Men, which shows massive amounts of devastation (with, suspiciously, very few fireballs) in an unprecedentedly realistic manner.
Then, as if purposely teasing me, the Nolan's recoiled. They knew the mainstream audience was unimpressed--they could sense the underwhelming of a crowd of rabid Batfans too thick to understand anything that wasn't slammed into their face. So, they had the Joker toy with his detonator with the same aura of displeasure as the presumably inane audience, and then had the hospital explode as if it had been filled with Methane. The inexorable flames singed the clouds and the smoke was on par with a falling trade center; it's amazing, if we are to take this destruction seriously, as we allegedly should, that anyone within 100 yards survived.
The problem with The Dark Knight is precisely that--that it is a blockbuster. And not a blockbuster in name, but a blockbuster in technique. It destroys any implications of subtlety as if they were signs of weakness--no different than, dare I say, Bay's Transformers. Is this a problem in a superhero movie; after all, Iron Man also employed some very 'unsubtle' scenes. But the difference is that Iron Man did it glibly and gaily; it was admittedly, consciously and advantageously 'childish,' in that it reminded one of being a kid and watching Sunday cartoons--it was a live-action Cartoon.
Nolan, however, fills his screen constantly with these cartoonish sequences while at the same time screaming, as his most important thematic undertone, "THIS IS REAL. THIS IS NOT A COMIC BOOK. THIS IS YOUR CITY. THESE ARE YOUR PROBLEMS."
It tries to strike a balance between seriousness and fantasticism--instead, it comes off as so self-serious that it's anti-intellectual. Nolan presents his entire movie in the context of a realistic police scenario--but it can't work when his displays are so unrealistic. Cognitive dissonance much?
Iron Man was, let us say, 'non-intellectual,' meaning that it could be enjoyed by anyone; intelligence didn't matter. The Dark Knight is, on the flip side, 'anti-intellectual,' meaning that the only way to enjoy it and not be annoyed by persistent questions and incontinuities is to be UNintelligent. Anyone who wishes to be involved in an intelligent thriller or 'crime drama' will be constantly baffled by The Dark Knight's sloppy execution and infighting implications.
For a movie that is self-righteously 'revolutionary,' there is nothing new. Batman, as I said, is essentially a caped Ghost Rider; Eckhart's two-face looks exactly like the goddamn Terminator, sans metal; the ferry vs. ferry tension is basically a rewrite of Kirsten Dunst vs. Bus in Spider-Man; the Joker comes across as a disciple of Saw's Jigsaw--down from his "Kill or be Killed" game-play to his gastric mobile phone explosives--a scene so preposterous that its ONLY appropriate home would be a Saw film (and if there was every a list of directors it's helpful to imitate, Wan and Bousman would be quite absent).
Eckhart's story has it's own problems--Harvey Dent doesn't undergo so much a 'metamorphosis' as he simply changes from one character to another in one scene. This is a 'transformation' that takes place instantaneously, and not on camera. One scene we have Mr. Dent and the next we have Two-Face.
His make-up is another "Fuck You" to realistic filmmaking; it doesn't look like Mr. Eckart was burned so much as it looks like he was hybridized with an extra-terrestrial and dissected; for fuck's sake, Mel Gibson had more realistic and effective prosthetics fifteen years ago in his directorial debut, The Man Without a Face.
But in these mainstream audiences, who wants a man who looks sincerely burned? Not me! I'd rather have a laughably overdone reinterpretation of Terminator.
Really? That's the best they could do?
Dent's transformation is, of course, the reaction to the completely undeveloped death of Maggie Gyllenhaal--the love triangle of Dent, Wayne, Dawes is set up quite noticeably in the first act; but then, as things tend to do in this film, becomes abandoned. Upon her death, I believe Christian Bale takes about twenty seconds to shed a tear and uses this grief to rally off some more overcooked mantras of The Cost of Good; a 'dark' superhero lining we haven't seen since...well, any of the last superhero movies.
The reason I give the film zero stars; or the lowest possible recommendation, however you measure that, is because there is nothing 'good' about it. Ledger's acting, which is hailed as 'Oscar-worthy,' is fine and adequate, yes, but is overhyped due to it's...let's say 'awkward' position in his filmography. He certainly is less wooden and obvious than his co-workers, but he is still, dare I say, 'clownish.' There are times when Ledger is on target and the Joker seems to be a sociopath always performing for his invisible audience; but then there are other's when he changes his voice too much, licks his tongue too much, like an actor unsure of what he wants to do or which direction to pursue--it is stylish, but it is not entirely polished.
The Dark Knight is the latest casualty of mainstreamdom; meaning it's entirely unconcerned with realistic output--which wouldn't be a problem per se in a Batman movie, but it is when Nolan is so self-serious about making his movie relevant and solemn. When he treats us with a generic, unimaginative action scene that is about half-a-click from Michael Bay stylistically, and dialogue that's so bloated it's unwatchable (unlistenable?), and at the same time flaunts his revolutionary 'darkness,' it comes across as insulting to intelligent viewers.
The movie's ending shows that Nolan is not a parabolist; he's a hyperbolist--there is no moral lesson here, just philosophomoric nihliism (not that movies about nihilism are always this nihilist themselves: see, for popular appeal, Fight Club) that is included because it meets Nolan's one benchmark: that it is dark.
When Ledger burns his winnings, Nolan is apparently clueless that the destruction of money is a symbolic gesture--he seems to think the important part of the scene is the size of the fire; god forbid The Joker open up a briefcase trimmed with Franklins and drop a match, creating his own suitcased hearth, as the camera watches the flame slowly but surely unmake his profits; instead, Nolan liquidates the GDP of a small country, douses it with gasoline and sets it alight, creating an immense jaws-of-hell blaze sure to wow even the most jaded of summertime fanboys. It proves, without doubt, that symbolism (read: the most important part of comicdom) is subjugated to spectacle--and if that is true, and what summer blockbusters have been doing all along and what Nolan has been trying to avoid, than it begs the question: . . . why so similar?
The Dark Knight, is, without doubt or dispute, the most anticipated movie of the summer--arguably ever--and, as the critical consensus is compiled, one of the best reviewed; in what could be described as an unanimous assault on reason and disinterest, hundreds of critics have marked it as the greatest "comic book movie" of all-time; and maybe even one of the greatest "crime dramas" to boot.
I saw it at Midnight, and I too, was absorbed in the hype--believing Christopher Nolan and his steady entourage of A-listers could do no wrong; I read the 11 (according to RottenTomatoes) negative reviews, and, in the back of my mind, not only didn't believe them, but pitied them--how can one dislike a Batman movie?
After seeing the film; I have changed my query--how can one like it?
To begin--an examination of The Dark Knight's alleged successes; its transcendence of assumed comic-book limitations; its grim rawness and expressively and exclusively dark tone; its ability to juxtapose superhero fantasy with realism; its already Oscar-bait performance from Heath Ledger; its deft writing from the Nolan brothers.
With these expectations in mind, finally, one must believe, a comic book movie that is not a formulaic blockbuster; finally, an imaginative, fantastical movie that takes place in a recognizable "real-world" setting.
But The Dark Knight is not this movie; it is not even close to this movie; it is the polar opposite of this movie.
Every bad film; like every hesitant fibber trying to "slip one by" an unassuming pigeon; has a "tell." A moment, or brief misstep, that tells the viewer, unequivocally, that the movie he is watching is not an intelligent one; a scene that unshrouds the film.
In The Dark Knight, this "tell," when I knew for sure that the movie would never recover, that it was surging downhill one-way, without hope for repentance, came about a half-hour in. Heath Ledger defenestrates Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Christian Bale, at work on his night job, soars out of the window to catch her--concluding in a high-velocity dive onto the top of a car, with enough force to cause it to cave in. Maggie Gyllenhaal, who, if she were interested in portraying any real woman, having just been harassed by a psychotic terrorist, and falling multiple stories onto a vehicle, would have had a mild nervous breakdown; at least some heavy breathing; most likely a scream; turns to Batman Bale and says, in a toying, mirthful voice, "Well, let's not do that again."
She ends it with a one-liner. How quaint.
The single most prevalent and corrosive flaw in modern Hollywood, and in its summertime movie machinery, is the replacement of genuine dialogue by the inclusion of placeholding one-liners; ending any awkward or dramatic situation with a single, disingenuous "joke" that reaches such high levels of obviousness and exhaustion that it could aptly be accompanied by a laugh track--a lame contrivance that generates laughter mechanically, no different from an illuminating "Applause" sign. The audience, like Pavlovian robots, recognize these lines as inclusions of humor; and laugh reflexively.
It is insulting to the audience; it indicates that we need everything spelled out for us, as uncomplex and direct as possible--it patronizes patrons.
But, that is simply the movie's "tell."
To understand the complete litany of failures, we must start (where else?) at the beginning.
The movie's opening heist has been called, by some critics (through blissful ignorance), disturbingly realistic; the most common name-check is Michael Mann. I enjoy Mann's work, for the most part, and so was looking forward to an opening scene that would set an impressive tone for the rest of the film.
The opening bank heist, in remarkable contrast, evolves with the farcicality of a video game cinematic; "Excuse me, honey, I'm making a withdrawal;" I haven't heard dialogue that unabashedly lame and uninspired outside of Nickelodeon cartoons; what was supposed to establish Nolan's framework of realism instead announces his ineptness when it comes to differentiating between bleakness and blandness. The clowns, which could've been dubbed by Mel Blanc for as absurd as they sound, banter back and forth before concluding in the disastrous "What bus driver?" before a school bus, at that exact moment, plows through the bank walls and runs him over.
Now, a certain level of the 'impractical,' shall we say, is to be expected in any movie of this genre--but Nolan fails because he is adamantly trying to jettison the genre--how can Nolan convince his audience that this is a serious film applicable to the 'real-world' outside Gotham when his opening setpiece erupts not just antically, but pretty damn stupidly.
Nolan upps himself in the next scene, which is Batman's introduction and is the first scene with the Caped Crusader's fisticuffs. In it, Bale battles with imposter Batmen, expendable mobsters, and Batman Begins supervillain, the Scarecrow.
The impostor Batmen are, I suppose, introduced as a starting point for the vigilantism angle the Nolan brothers are pursuing; but it's never followed up in the rest of the film--these "competitor" Batmen enter and exit in this very scene, indicating that the Nolan's, as we will see throughout, are more interested in packing the narrative as tightly as they can, coherence be damned.
The Scarecrow is also irrelevant to the rest of the movie; why he exists in this scene is, again, I suppose, as a wink to Batman fans who enjoyed Nolan's first redux--but why begin a film with an incongruity?
The 'mob' are a central plot point for about the first twenty or thirty minutes; and then, promptly, are eliminated from the screenplay until the end, at the film's drastically underachieving reach for closure. In fact, in retrospect, it's almost impossible to understand why the mob is introduced at all. Besides the fact that "mobsters" are standard issue for the 'crime drama' that Nolan claims this is, their inclusion is mystifying. The moneyman from Hong Kong is even paid a visit from Morgan Freeman and given ample screentime in the first act--where does this storyline lead? With him being sprung from a jail cell in the final twenty minutes, having not been mentioned or relevant in between.
The Joker's renegade terrorism would have made an entirely appropriate villain by himself; perhaps the 'mob,' who, unlike the Joker, are actually relatable to audience members was included in a vain attempt to reel the ludicrous film into the orbit of realism.
But it doesn't work, instead the Nolan's waste screentime (of which they have more than plenty) developing and introducing character's that have absolutely no impact on the story.
We are introduced also, in this scene, to Christian Bale v.2. (Cape Version). The Nolan's ultimate failure in this respect is somehow letting him speak the way he does--grating, asphyxiated vocals that reminisce the unbearable monotony of Nicholas Cage in Ghost Rider. Every time he opens his mouth, the viewer reels.
As we continue throughout the movie, we become more acquainted with the inherent flaws of the screenplay, the most obvious being that nowhere, not a single scene in the entire two-and-a-half hour film, do two or more character's have a real conversation; instead, nuanced dialogue is replaced by a theatrical directness and overdramatization; every character appears to be have rehearsed a verbal thesis on good, evil, truth, justice, etc. It reminds me very much of No Fear Shakespeare; the Barnes and Noble study guides that translate Shakespearean dialogue into 'understandable' English for the mainly illiterate. A guide that blasphemously turns Hamlet's 'to be or not to be' soliloquy into:
"The question is: is it better to be alive or dead? Is it nobler to put up with all the nasty things that luck throws your way, or to fight against all those troubles by simply putting an end to them once and for all? Dying, sleeping—that's all dying is—a sleep that ends all the heartache and shocks that life on earth gives us—that's an achievement to wish for. To die, to sleep—to sleep, maybe to dream. Ah, but there's the catch: in death's sleep who knows what kind of dreams might come, after we've put the noise and commotion of life behind us. That's certainly something to worry about. That's the consideration that makes us stretch out our sufferings so long."
Every line in the Dark Knight suffers from the same painful didacticism, as if the Nolan's wrote an original script and then dumbed it down for mainstream audiences; a script that turned genuine dialogue into lines like "Endure. You can be the outcast. You can make the choice that no one else will face - the right choice. Gotham needs you," "Don't make me your only hope for a normal life," and any of risible taglines on anarchism.
This death of subtlety is even more apparent in the nearly incomprehensible action sequences; every time there is a bombing, there isn't just a bombing, there's an explosion the likes of which we haven't seen since Hiroshima. There is one scene where I actually thought The Dark Knight had, momentarily, reached something great. When Ledger's Joker walks out of a hospital, garbed as a nurse, dallyingly approaching with his hands in the air, as if to say, "I told you so," as windows explode, in sequence, behind him--glass flying out, smoke pouring out.
The scene, at first, was the perfect romance of realistic danger and superheroic evil; it was what the Nolan's had been trying to, and failing, up until then.
I thought about why the film was so much more present and immediate than the rest, and I realized that the hospital explosions were not overdone--it looked like what a blowing up a hospital would look like. It reminded me, very heavily, of Children of Men, which shows massive amounts of devastation (with, suspiciously, very few fireballs) in an unprecedentedly realistic manner.
Then, as if purposely teasing me, the Nolan's recoiled. They knew the mainstream audience was unimpressed--they could sense the underwhelming of a crowd of rabid Batfans too thick to understand anything that wasn't slammed into their face. So, they had the Joker toy with his detonator with the same aura of displeasure as the presumably inane audience, and then had the hospital explode as if it had been filled with Methane. The inexorable flames singed the clouds and the smoke was on par with a falling trade center; it's amazing, if we are to take this destruction seriously, as we allegedly should, that anyone within 100 yards survived.
The problem with The Dark Knight is precisely that--that it is a blockbuster. And not a blockbuster in name, but a blockbuster in technique. It destroys any implications of subtlety as if they were signs of weakness--no different than, dare I say, Bay's Transformers. Is this a problem in a superhero movie; after all, Iron Man also employed some very 'unsubtle' scenes. But the difference is that Iron Man did it glibly and gaily; it was admittedly, consciously and advantageously 'childish,' in that it reminded one of being a kid and watching Sunday cartoons--it was a live-action Cartoon.
Nolan, however, fills his screen constantly with these cartoonish sequences while at the same time screaming, as his most important thematic undertone, "THIS IS REAL. THIS IS NOT A COMIC BOOK. THIS IS YOUR CITY. THESE ARE YOUR PROBLEMS."
It tries to strike a balance between seriousness and fantasticism--instead, it comes off as so self-serious that it's anti-intellectual. Nolan presents his entire movie in the context of a realistic police scenario--but it can't work when his displays are so unrealistic. Cognitive dissonance much?
Iron Man was, let us say, 'non-intellectual,' meaning that it could be enjoyed by anyone; intelligence didn't matter. The Dark Knight is, on the flip side, 'anti-intellectual,' meaning that the only way to enjoy it and not be annoyed by persistent questions and incontinuities is to be UNintelligent. Anyone who wishes to be involved in an intelligent thriller or 'crime drama' will be constantly baffled by The Dark Knight's sloppy execution and infighting implications.
For a movie that is self-righteously 'revolutionary,' there is nothing new. Batman, as I said, is essentially a caped Ghost Rider; Eckhart's two-face looks exactly like the goddamn Terminator, sans metal; the ferry vs. ferry tension is basically a rewrite of Kirsten Dunst vs. Bus in Spider-Man; the Joker comes across as a disciple of Saw's Jigsaw--down from his "Kill or be Killed" game-play to his gastric mobile phone explosives--a scene so preposterous that its ONLY appropriate home would be a Saw film (and if there was every a list of directors it's helpful to imitate, Wan and Bousman would be quite absent).
Eckhart's story has it's own problems--Harvey Dent doesn't undergo so much a 'metamorphosis' as he simply changes from one character to another in one scene. This is a 'transformation' that takes place instantaneously, and not on camera. One scene we have Mr. Dent and the next we have Two-Face.
His make-up is another "Fuck You" to realistic filmmaking; it doesn't look like Mr. Eckart was burned so much as it looks like he was hybridized with an extra-terrestrial and dissected; for fuck's sake, Mel Gibson had more realistic and effective prosthetics fifteen years ago in his directorial debut, The Man Without a Face.
But in these mainstream audiences, who wants a man who looks sincerely burned? Not me! I'd rather have a laughably overdone reinterpretation of Terminator.
Really? That's the best they could do?
Dent's transformation is, of course, the reaction to the completely undeveloped death of Maggie Gyllenhaal--the love triangle of Dent, Wayne, Dawes is set up quite noticeably in the first act; but then, as things tend to do in this film, becomes abandoned. Upon her death, I believe Christian Bale takes about twenty seconds to shed a tear and uses this grief to rally off some more overcooked mantras of The Cost of Good; a 'dark' superhero lining we haven't seen since...well, any of the last superhero movies.
The reason I give the film zero stars; or the lowest possible recommendation, however you measure that, is because there is nothing 'good' about it. Ledger's acting, which is hailed as 'Oscar-worthy,' is fine and adequate, yes, but is overhyped due to it's...let's say 'awkward' position in his filmography. He certainly is less wooden and obvious than his co-workers, but he is still, dare I say, 'clownish.' There are times when Ledger is on target and the Joker seems to be a sociopath always performing for his invisible audience; but then there are other's when he changes his voice too much, licks his tongue too much, like an actor unsure of what he wants to do or which direction to pursue--it is stylish, but it is not entirely polished.
The Dark Knight is the latest casualty of mainstreamdom; meaning it's entirely unconcerned with realistic output--which wouldn't be a problem per se in a Batman movie, but it is when Nolan is so self-serious about making his movie relevant and solemn. When he treats us with a generic, unimaginative action scene that is about half-a-click from Michael Bay stylistically, and dialogue that's so bloated it's unwatchable (unlistenable?), and at the same time flaunts his revolutionary 'darkness,' it comes across as insulting to intelligent viewers.
The movie's ending shows that Nolan is not a parabolist; he's a hyperbolist--there is no moral lesson here, just philosophomoric nihliism (not that movies about nihilism are always this nihilist themselves: see, for popular appeal, Fight Club) that is included because it meets Nolan's one benchmark: that it is dark.
When Ledger burns his winnings, Nolan is apparently clueless that the destruction of money is a symbolic gesture--he seems to think the important part of the scene is the size of the fire; god forbid The Joker open up a briefcase trimmed with Franklins and drop a match, creating his own suitcased hearth, as the camera watches the flame slowly but surely unmake his profits; instead, Nolan liquidates the GDP of a small country, douses it with gasoline and sets it alight, creating an immense jaws-of-hell blaze sure to wow even the most jaded of summertime fanboys. It proves, without doubt, that symbolism (read: the most important part of comicdom) is subjugated to spectacle--and if that is true, and what summer blockbusters have been doing all along and what Nolan has been trying to avoid, than it begs the question: . . . why so similar?
132 comments:
You fail at watching movies.
Screw you it was brilliant
you my friend are a dumbass this movie was the shiz
I think you tried. I really do. However, you listen to much to reviews. You're full of anti-hype. Just because you find flaws in other people's views or ideas of the movie, that shouldn't dock the movie's score. Do you watch movies to critique them? I don't. I watch the movie to enjoy them, to hear a story, and some cheesy one-liners. So what if parts are unrealistic? It catches your attention, and if you weren't so critique ready, you would have been like "that was unrealistic...but pretty cool."
yhy
YOU ARE RIGHT THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR........IF YOU COMPARE THIS TO THE ORIGUNAL TIM BURTON BATMAN...THAT WAS COMPLETELY ON A DIFFRENT LEVEL. CHRISTIAN BALE CANT ACT.....THE DIRECTOR CANT DIRECT. HE SHOULD MAYBE DIRECT SESAME STREET.
WASTE OF MONEY......THE DIRECTOR IS SO USELESS HE EVEN FORGOT TO PUT ANY OPENING CREDITS....
BRING BACK TIM BURTON.......HE IS THE ONLY DIRECTOR THAT DOES JUSTICE TO BATMAN...
I'm sorry, but your 'tell' is all wrong. Maggie Gyllenhall's character knows Bruce Wayne is Batman, and I'm sure that any director or writer WOULD recognise that one would be a little shaken after being dropped out of a window.
As for them copying Terminator, they don't really have much room for manoeuvre with what the inside of the human body looks like.
Lastly, don't you think that calling it the 'worst movie of the year' is a little hypocritical in the sense that you're as overly dramatic and exaggerative as you claim the film is.
Did you know the imposter batmen do actually return in the movie? Joker uses one to send a message to Gotham.
To the weirdo who flips about the movie not having a tim burton feel: we dont want this movie to be a rippoff do we?
Personally the movie quite impressed me and two face's head was much more realistic on the theater screen... Also you did see his face catch on fire and you can feel his pain if you really pay attention to the actual movie instead of just on whats wrong with it... It is not the worst movie of the year, cmon theres all those stupid comedies that hollywood pumps out like rabits.
(sorry for the bad english, its not my original language)
You're a freak if you thought this movie was bad. Get over the possible minor flaws and enjoy everything that is genius about the film. why the hell would you go and watch a film to make a list of bad points about it? that's usually not why films are made. it's practically flawless anyway!
I am a student of film and I accept the fact that big Hollywood films are usually mass produce generic products. I also accept people are entitled to their own opinion.
This "Review", however, isn't your opinion. It is you trying to cause a reaction to draw attention to yourself or to prove to anyone that has time to waste to look in your general direction that you are "alternative" and you don't "follow the crowd".
I can understand this not being your thing, but calling it worst movie of the year just proves you seek such attention.
I hope this comment gives you the twisted pleasure you seek, you sad, reaction fishing little reprobate!
I hear suicide is very popular nowadays........
As a student of film, I would imagine you would be much more respectful of dissenting opinions, instead of being quick to label them false and intentionally contrarian.
While it may be true that The Dark Knight is not, objectively, the absolute 'worst' movie of the year; it is certainly the movie with the most disconnect between critical/fan response and actually delivery (in my opinion).
I suppose it's easier to dismiss an opinion as purposely 'different' then it is to offer some more critical responses.
I really don't give a flying fuck whether you read the blog or not, as you can tell, I don't exactly keep it up for a constant audience, but thanks for playing.
In my mind, the movie was simply another summer blockbuster, which would be okay, but it's main intention was NOT to be; so I thought it failed in its ambitions.
--Nathan
Well it looks like your one of the three miserable people who tried vainly to dislike TDK, you even went far by calling it the worst movie of the year, i suppose the best film in your rank would be a tie between the "The Love Guru and Don't Mess With the Zohan"
TDK may not be a flawless film but it has become the best of its genre.
anyway congratuations you have proven that you have special taste in moves, equivalent of a cluster-f*ck retard.
I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion but dude, you suck at reviewing movies. The DK was a great movie...
the atomic punk is right go jump off a building or do whatever you emo kids do to commit suicide. ledger ruled oldman ruled and the whole damn movie rocked
the movie was more true to batman than any burton batman thus far. In the original batman comics this was the joker, period. he later adapted to the comedic joker in the ladder of the series. In burtons production of batman they did what really shouldn't be done and killed off an arch nemeses. batman killed the joker the penguin two face mr freeze and poison ivy. so far other than killing off harvey dent in the movie it was as close to batman as it gets. and by the way did you ever read the batman comics. the cheesy one liners were there as well. sure its unrealistic. they all were. however i do agree that when i went and saw the movie i was slightly disappointed but not by the one liners and not by the unrealistic events but by the fact that the movie was not dark enough . i was looking for a absolute morbidness from it. however do note that i did say slightly. other than that i thoroughly enjoyed the movie. maybe you notice that the movie is not called batman the dark knight. its just called the dark knight as to let people know this is not just another batman movie. this is something different. most people should have known before they went to see it that its not the same as "batman" from burton. maybe you should just watch a movie and enjoy it thats what it was made for. and i do agree with the film student. your review was absolutely negative. if you were actually reviewing the movie most people would give both good points and bad points and show why this is a bad movie by the scales tipping that way. appears that you are just trying to go against the mold. but what do i know i am not one of those kind of people who go around using inflated words to make myself sound smart just someone who just wants to get his point across.
Obviously this is not meant to be a legitimate "review," i.e. one that could be published; it's just a semi-rant that I put on my own blog for better or worse because I was disappointed by the movie.
How you people even found this is beyond me.
I think this was the best movie of the year so far. Heath Ledger rocked ma socks off!!!
It's Batman, my friend, a movie based on a COMIC BOOK.
You didn't expect over the top? I guess after seeing Batman Begins, with its ultra-realistic plot (sarcasm), you expected more from the sequel, right?
If you watched and liked BB, but thought that TDK was unrealistic in comparison, you're as close to retarded as it gets. Wordy, but retarded.
Now, if you watched BB and disliked it, then why in hell would you watch its follow up?
wowwww
your retard that was THE best movie of the year by faaarrrrrrr
obviously she didn't have a fit after falling out a window cause how stupid would it look to have a nervous breakdown in the movie what the hell would happen then would batman get on his batphone and call a phyciatrist??batmans not a touchy feelly guy. if you want reality then dont watch movie based on a guy who fights crime dressed as a bat.
you suck, the movie was great, your reading into it too much a movie is a movie and not all events in the MOVIE will seem real. get a life and a clue retard
It's not that the movie was unrealistic; it's that it was unrealistic when it's main objective was to bring a new sense of realism to the genre.
Instead, we get cynicism in lieu of realism; and the last thing the world needs is another cynic who's convinced he's a realist.
Right off the "Bat" - heh I made humor there, "right off the bat" get it? - every person is entitled to their opinion either if it's a good one or a bad one, which is, of course, subjective by itself.
I respect your opinion, even though -and if I could quote skippy here- you fail, just for a single reason...not because you condemn the Hype, which is obviously there and we all felt it -this movie had a marketing dpt that could sell shit for art if they wanted to- but because you fail to point out that your whole review is just that...yours..your own opinion.
Next off, I'd like to point out a few things that I liked and kinda disagree with you there..
Opening scene, yeah it was kind of a tribute to Mann. That was nice, we can all agree to that...
-Now, the whole "bus" thing, thats for building up character, total disregard for human life etc -with a little sugar on top on the part that the last accomplish asks the Joker whether the bank manager has unloaded all his shotgun shells and Joker just nods "yes" just to have him stand up and risk taking a bullet in the face- and this is just one of the little details that make the film what it is..
-Jokers Voice, you said if I remember correctly that you didn't enjoy the way he changed his tone.. I found that to be one of the films best perks.. and that was not all Ledger, he obviously got directed, by guess who..
I could rant on and on about this but I'll just leave it here..
PS: I must admit though that I thoroughly enjoyed Batman Begins far more than this film, have yet to pinpoint why.
PS2: What was not pointed out by you sir, and could very well be a negative to the whole film (which it is by my own standards) is the choreography (see fighting scenes) where at times it seemed like they took a cat and/or dog and some let it choreograph the scenes..or even better, they let Adam West do it ..
I agree that it was unrealistic, but the negatives you pointed out were mainly minor details. Yes, there were things they didn't follow through with, such as Harvey's character change. He suddenly went INSANE! And WHAT on earth even happened to his family? This was not explained in the movie, or even presented til the very end. And I was sad that Cillian Murphy only appeared the one time in the beginning.
But this is so obviously NOT the worst movie of the year. It was so enjoyable. The Joker was an interesting character, and Heath Ledger made him so funny at times, like when he visits Harvey in the hospital (he was a totally hot nurse, amirite?) and makes that face when he says, "....Hi."
All in all, your concerns are legitimate, but it was mostly nitpicking. Just sit back and enjoy this bad boy. Movies are meant to entertain.
I want to know what superhero movies you do like, if any. Those must be awesome.
idk what movie you where @ but that movie is one of the all time movies ever
What amazes me is how many people LOVE this horrible movie. Horrible. Read Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns' to see a Batman tale deserving to be called "great." Another schlock Hollywood failure that zombie-America can't wait to fall on their knees to worship. Shame on you all.
Sir, I understand you view and it has several good points. But you must realize one thing:
"IT's A MOVIE!!"
It is, at best 24 frames of plastic running in front of a lightbulb (presuming it's not a digital theater of course). Movies are not supposed to be real. They are escapist entertainment. No one really talks like that, no one really acts like that, and the dork rarely (if ever) gets to kiss the hot cheerleader as music swells up around him. It just doesn't happen!!
How you could walk into a film about a guy in a rubber suit with pointy ears chasing down a maniac with a panache for bright purple suits and grease paint and expect 'Realism" is beyond me. If I wanted realism, I would have saved $10 and went to work to make what little money I do to pay some bills instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, for the fact that you can't watch something to enjoy it. I think that maybe you should look at some of the source material (i.e. comic books) and see how REAL (sarcasm inserted) they are in their dialog story and action before you go and expect the next Citizen Kane from a summer popcorn superhero flick.
you have a tiny penis..get over it
I don't think it's the worst movie of the year, but this is one of the best negative reviews I have ever read (probably for any movie).
The comments thus far have been fantastic. I need good c(h)omedy in my life.
Thanks for the interesting review and entertaining comments...
stop hating for no reason
get a girlfriend
Yes, the movie was filled with one-liners(draws similar from the source: comic books).
Unrealistic explosions,dialogue, and make-up; all of which originate from comic books.
Dawes,the non-existent character that captures all of Bruce's love interests' qualities is meant to be opaque minded,as a kind of social remark to the fact they are involved.
Dent drawn into the dual life by love(read Loeb's "Long Halloween"), scarred to a fashion never again to be half the man{not machine/governator aint got shit on this DA}he once was.
Bruce, is for the first time on film "realistically" exposed to his emotions of returning to a normal life. Leaving him open for his biggest flaw, his reflection with a sadistic grin.
The most critical of villians from any franchise, the Joker, meant to be unreal,charismatic, but more to the point impossible(he is to be the foil of Batman for his entire career). His film needs to be similar to his outlook, filled with reality bending action and mayhem.
So when you say that the Dark Knight is the worst movie of the year fine, you are doing exactly what the movie gives the Knight himself as a centralized theme, a love/hate relationship with people he is trying to save(or in this relationship: entertain).
Besides if Nolan wanted to really attach intelligence to his "realism", he would have attacked the Riddler as the villian....and for the love of Batman himself respect the fact that this is not the Catwoman movie.
And for record, mister Fisher "Why So Serious?".
OMG! How can u say this is is the worst film movie of the year- sayin thats a bit over the top isnt it. its plain to see that u just seek attention.
I respect your opinion because everyone is entitled to it but because your whole review was from a negative perspective it sucks.
true there were a few flaws like not showing the development of character like the transition from harvey dent to harvey two face and the cheesy one liners but guess what its based on a comic book and the movie had to stick to a fast pace.
i think harvey two face make up is soo cool and im glad its not like terminator that would of been pathetic.
i feel sorry for u because u go into a film and point out its flaws y cant u enjoy it for what it is!
cant believe ure nit-picking about the movie not being realistic either. it has been made for entertainment purposes if it was all realistic i would of walked outta the film an so u know TDK's central character is a man who runs around in a black bat costume whats realistic about that!?
Heath Ledger was best by far, doubt any1 could come near to beating his potrayal of the joker, and its just a shame that he couldnt see his final work on the big screen
r.i.p heath
if you want realism then watch national geographic. everything after that would be laughable and "fake." why not begin by commenting on a grown man wearing a bat themed suit?
the movie touched on core human emotions and morals in a comic book movie which turned out to be an effective means of communicating to the audience.
the only thing laughable is your review and your inability to enjoy entertainment.
Two face didn't suddenly go insane, his name is Two Face for a reason (besides his face being half burned), Harvey Dent was a TWO FACED PERSON.
The insanity was seen before he became Two Face. In the scene where Gordon fakes his death, Harvey captures the rifleman that was in police custody and almost kills him. He is TWO FACED. His underlying insanity only peeks through in this scene before it manifests itself fully after Rachel is killed. This insanity wasn't sudden, it was there the whole time.
I don't feel like going over the rest of your review and I think Atomic Punk summed up this review pretty well
Well said. The Dark Knight's A+ consensus was reached long before the film was screened for critics. It's a shame the Nolans pandered to such an undeserving audience.
I agree, except that I really did like Heath Ledger's performance. This movie will not endure.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course!
However, I sincerely hope that I never reach the stage of being unable to watch a movie such as TDK without completely over analysing it.
There are thousands of film students (and graduates for that matter) who would not be so pretentious
"hOw BoUt We PuT a SmIlE oN mR.fIsHeR's FaCe?" Wow...Firstly, Do You Think He Even Enjoy's Comic Book Movie's? What Sort Of Movie Do You Think He Finds Appealing? Up Till Now Most People Would Say Either The Original Superman Or Spiderman 2, Or Even The Original Batman Would Be Considered The Best Of Comic Book Movie's. As A Fan Of The Batman Franchise I Suppose I'm Biased In My Opinion...However...I Know Movies...And The Dark Knight...Flaws And All...Was Everything I Expected...I Was Very Entertained By It. Consider This Obvious Point...It's Based On A Comic Book...And Has Been Geared Toward Mainly Children For At Least...Um Say...40 Years. Come On Man...Are We Not Just A Little Bit Over Critical. If You Don't Enjoy Those Types Of Film...Okay, Fine...Say It Wasn't Your Cup Of Tea And Leave It At That. Let's Deconstruct It To The Umteenth Degree. I Say...Entertainment...It Was Better Than Sitting Through "Titantic". Until...Shadow Of The Bat...Ta,Ta For Now.
it is an amusement
a roller coaster
a blockbuster
it cannot be judged as a film
it is something for fun
a new distinction needs to be made
this sort of thing is not art
yet many films are
so i don't know
people like it because they like a thrill
something that toys with their mind
makes them forget
but it doesn't really reveal anything
it is very much like the old comics
sort of simple and fun and stylish
not at all like standing before a painting or listening to music
there's no heart involved
and that's the main thing anyway
whatever it is
film or something else
it has no heart
no soul
You're a fucking idiot. Go back to college and take a journal/creative writing class. Your review is about as dry as 3 week old meatloaf. Your critique is shoddy at best and trying to read through was tougher than chewing on nails. All movies created in hollywood are geared towards 15 year old little children and the non credits in the introduction was a continuum from the 1st movie.
Remember: A good critique is given without bias. Next time you criticize a piece of work, don't read into the reviews until after.
And if you hate hollywood movies so-much, don't go to the theater. Hey, I got a better idea... take an english lit class and learn to write you fucking mook.
Hey did you notice that I came back full circle to calling you an idiot again? That's called restating a thesis... go learn something... retard.
movie is the best of the year too put it down for dumb dialouge is stupid every movie will have stupid words the point is people wanted the movie too be good and soo in the eye of the beholder its a good movie
granted it was a half an hour too long the stoy is solid and brings a new look into the life of batman.
as for two face i would belave that he was the movie shouldnt matter how he looks but how he was interpid qoute you either die becoming a hero or live long enough to see youre self become the villian. ledgers part in the movie was quite good even though i think that the joker could of had more parts in it maybe more confritations with batman he still was a great part of the movie.
I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that you were trained to watch movies and then give a good critque on them. I also didn't realize that you have any knowledge of film making what-so-ever.
Oh, wait. You don't, do you?
Theres more to movies than you may think. Directors spend hours and hours just figuring out which way they want the camera angled. So, somehow, I think that this director may have some idea of how to direct.
And as for any of the actors not being able to act, lets see you get in there and do it. Oh, can't do that either can you?
Next time you want to have a long ass bitch fit (that I didn't even read all of because you're so annoying) why don't you actually have some idea of what you're talking about, hm?
P.S. Go look up pictures of severely bad burn victims. And, yes, that is what the worst of the worst burns look like.
Dumbass.
the insulting rabid posts here merely confirm the ignornance of the masses... no wonder bush got elected twice!
realistic? fuck. it wasn't even alive. the only thing with a heart beat was the guy that killed himself. ironic and moronic. go to six flags instead. it's a two hour a roller coaster ride, it goes nowhere. it's brittany spears and keeny chesney, it sez nothing. it is empty pointless mindless soulless hype. it can only serve as a distraction from reality.
check out the list of top grossing films of all time (key word - gross). popular rarely means good. it seems the tastes of an a.d.d. 12 year old dictate the focus of money and resources in america. the dark knight cost 200 million dollars to make. instead 200 new filmmakers could have made 200 one million dollar films rather than this one big fat merry-go-round painted black.
Your blog is well written and rather impressive, but is also pointless. You are blogging about a film which has grossed over 400 million. It is a movie which is made for entertainment. And it successfully entertained many people and will do so when you purchase the special edition blu-ray for your PS3 you hypocrite. I'm sure you blogged about how unrealistic shrek was by making an Ogre have a soft side.
aurora-requiem , harvey's family ws rachel. Rachel=babies
Wow... This is all a bit ridiculous. Everyone is arguing that this 1 guy is wrong about what he thinks about the movie... just seems odd. Personally, I had the best movie experience of my life with TDK in IMAX, but I don't think that is any reason to put this dude down cuz of his opinion... I would just say that maybe he's long winded. Stop condemning him just cuz he didn't like the same movie you did. What a stupid think to argue about. All I suggest to the writer of this insanely long blog about (in my opinion) a great movie, maybe rewatch it to just enjoy it and not just to critique it and put it down. You may figure out that it's not "THE WORST MOVIE" And to all you other asses for name calling and saying "you need to get a girlfriend" or "you have a tiny penis" blah Blah BLAH Bullshit! I have one thing to say to all you that make yourselves feel better by putting down someone else... ready?
Fuck you.
Thank you, have a good night, and dont forget to have your pet spayed or neutered.
SERIOUSLY THE DARK NIGHT CANNOT BE WORSE THAN A MOVIE WITH WILL FARRELL IN IT. ALL MOVIES HAVE FLAWS BUT COME ON THERE WERE PLENTY OF BAD MOVIES AND THAT ONE AINT IT. SO TRY AGAIN
I don't believe that a single person read this entire wall of text aka review.
I just don't see why everyone are going bananas over a comic book based movie, a movie whether good or bad should be based on merits, not emotional attachments for the casts, especially someone who is dead. All that mindless hype...
I must say it that I am proud of my resolution that I was able to actually able to read through the wall of review and the mountain of comments after that. here's my 2 cents for what it's worth, this may or may not be the best movie of all time. But this was definitely the best movie of 2008 (so far) and also possibly the best comic book movie ever made. was it dark? yes! was it too dark? hmm... i don't think so. But I did feel that it was a very effective deconstruction of Batman and his world. Did it have cheesy one liners and over the top action? Yes, definitely. Did the movie feel real? Yes again for this one. And with a good reason. I saw this movie on the 25th of July in Bangalore. That was the day the entire city was brought to a standstill by 8 bombs exploding at various points. The bombs were planted by 2 people on a motor bike and at areas meant to generate fear but not death. But the ease with which it was done, putting an entire city into chaos and fear, is one of the central themes of The Dark Knight. And to me, yes it's very believable and scary for all it's cheesy one liners for we don't have a Batman to stop the next Joker who comes along and wants to bomb our quiet neighbourhood to pieces.
Sorry about my rant, but just wanted to through my thoughts in.
Goodnight
Note from the author:
Although I am still bewildered by the mere presence of 51 comments on this admittedly pointless blog, I guess I should be appreciative that people have actually noticed this completely traffic-free site that exists for clearly my own personal reasons. I should say a few words.
a.) The review is obviously not necessarily of journalistic quality, meaning, without brushing it up, I would never attempt to publish it as is. Some say it is 'biased' and I would say, well, arguably, yes it is. But keep your venue in mind--this is a blog. It was written not for a wide audience, I am not expecting people to read my insights and decide whether or not to see The Dark Knight. I am only throwing my opinion out into the endless internet dendrites, where at least 51 people have felt the urge to respond. This is less a review and more of a 'rant' but I still attempt to create some constructive and critical thought.
b.) For those who say "Comic Book movies are not meant to be realistic," I have already, I thought, responded. The problem is not the fact that the movie is unrealistic; the problem is that it is unrealistic when the Nolan's are predominantly concerned with making it contemporary and relevant. It is cognitive dissonance, as noted in the 'review.'
c.) For those who said, "If you can't make a better movie, you can't complain," you obviously do not understand the nature of criticism. I am allowed to say certain bands are no good, even if I can't play music myself, can't I? Otherwise, criticism in general would simply die.
d.) To the person who said my writing was terrible; I beg to differ, for obvious reasons, but since you were a dick, I guess I can be one too. I'm fairly confidant in my writing and at least never made a metaphor out of meatloaf. And for the record, thesis statements are for High Schoolers, and restating one is actually called redundancy.
e.) I won't respond the to rest unless you are actually raising a real debate--as opposed to vain insults and covering things I already talked about in the text. Also, if you didn't read it because it was long (it comes in at 3,000 words), don't bother commenting. I'd hate to see you try to read a book.
f.) Thanks to those who made coherent and readable posts, whether for or against, and bye.
You sir are an idiot. You are not only an idiot but you are a smug idiot.
You clearly are one of those people who look at life and pick out its flaws. You wait in line to see a fantastic movie, one that is dark, atmospheric, creative and well received only to pick at its flaws with a fine tooth comb and go home, ranting on your little blog about it. congratulations. I had to stop reading your "review" if one can call it that after about the fifth paragraph...one can only take your shot by shot analysis of each scene for so long. The problems you find in the film are nothing short of ridiculous. And your comparison of two Face to the Terminator is just plane silly. Go rub your face in some gasoline and then light a match to it and see how it looks if you didn't use medical science to alleviate the pain and healing process and you might end up looking a little something like Arnold yourself.
You know what my "Tell" on you is? you are a nit wit who picks at flaws and enjoys being unsatisfied.
My advice to you:
Next time, sit back and watch the movie to enjoy it --enjoy the fantastic performances, the dark atmosphere and entertaining world that the Nolan brothers have brought to you. Sit back, enjoy and Applaud. Life is too short for people like you my friend. Go take a look in the mirror.
A note to the author...
It makes sense that your an eighteen year old snot.
Nice response with your highlighted points though they were shit.
Point "A" for example; You call your review a rant but your heading says a critique. Are you honestly going to sit there and say that it was a rant. At least stand up for yourself and your writing. Have the balls to say it was a critique, a review, an honest opinion that you sincerely and genuinely believe in. Anyone can see the amount of work you put into it. But your ego blinds you. When you say your blog was not meant for a wide audience, surely everyone agrees with you when you think the internet is only used by you, I and five other people in the world.
Who would have thought a rant with with critical thought. To quote Alanis whom was hazed for her song, "isn't that ironic, don't cha think?"
Point "B": No one in their right mind can agree with you on cognitive dissonance Idea. If the masses all agree that it was a well made and they can get the general idea that's all that matters to them. So explain to everyone, what is so cognitively dissonant" about this movie? All I see is bad people hurting other people, good people chasing after bad people and bad people getting caught. I don't get what about that is dissonant? It worked in every other movie created in the past. You know, I think you like the idea of sounding smart while you write. It's ok, a lot of idiots like sounding smart, they also like cookies, pats on the back and showing their good grades in advanced ap classes while forgetting to cover up their street school information. Lets see, getting "d's" and "c's" in classes means not only that your lazy you also don't know how to take direction. So for someone who thinks their smart, your pretty fucking stupid. Especially when this is on your own admission.
Point "c": I'll agree with you. You do have the right to say what ever to whomever you would like. But don't make it slanderous other wise you will have a lot of legal issues ahead. Just fair warning.
Point "d": your writing is horrible and your being blindsided by teenage angst. If your main argument for stating that your writing isn't atrocious is "obvious reasons," you've never been in a debate class either. Which perpetuates the fact that your an ignorant teenager. Also, when you speak in a large forum like a blog that has been posted on the internet where billions upon billions of people can come across and leave random posts, you need to speak in generalities that everyone can understand. Besides, I like meatloaf.
Sorry dude, your shit is out in the open contrary to what you might believe.
Note: Thesis statements are used in college, simple. And when your speaking in generalities you have to restate your ideas over and over again. Though it may sound redundant that is the way a college thesis is written. Shit head. I hope you actually do pay attention when your away at community college, mommy and daddy would be so proud of you. Especially when you get your aa in liberal arts. Then you get your high grossing salary for saying would you like fries with that. Man I can't wait, you'll be the smartest idiot in town. Strawberry shakes will fall from the heavens and you'll have your employees look up to you thinking, "Man, I wanna be like him some day."
Point "e": Don't insult people by assuming they haven't read your bullshit review that your backing off on by saying it was a rant. If you can't handle any of the comments that your receiving don't allow comments to be posted. Hey I got one better, if you don't want anyone saying anything at all don't publish your longwinded diatribes on the internet unless your ready for the flack.
Good writers don't sling mud back at others and call them dicks. They say, thank you for your criticism and move on, or better yet, not say anything. You might think that this is the stove calling the kettle black, but really it's the stove calling the kettle an idiot. A big idiot.
You're sad. You don't know how to take criticism. Thank god people like you aren't holding positions of responsibility.
see you later you sorry little "D minus" student." I hope next time you grow some thicker skin and an ability to laugh at yourself because someone else will hit harder with even more things to say and/or do. When this happens I hope you don't turn into someone like the columbine students or that kid from virginia tech.
Thank you, anonymous. However, your reply was barely literate and took quite a while to decode. Perhaps next time you try to insult me, you should do it without insulting yourself.
And for the record, 'your' and 'you're' mean different things.
Actually responding to a traumatic event with either humour or silence is two of the more common reactions, and in fact people trained in triage are taught to observe quips and apparent light hearted remarks as signs of a patient entering shock.
I don't know what that should `tell' you though.
this is sad... i thought this was going to be a good review and all isee is people slamming eachother. this was a total waste of time.
Wow, how long did you have to sit in front of a thesaurus to write this review? In case you hadn't noticed, Batman is not based on the real world, most comic books of this genre have one liners and a fairly unbelievable story line. Did you ever just consider sitting down and watching this movie for the fact that it's a fun ride? Over analysis aside, I think you really missed the boat on why and how this movie was great. Though I certainly appreciate your points, watching a deep meaningful conversation between Batman and anyone in the movie just isn't quite as much fun as watching the Joker cackle, Batman bust up some criminals and a few good explosions for good measure. Way to go, you manage to find a way to suck the fun out of a movie that has it in abundance!
Wow... nathan is a fag...
Somebody flamed all over you and the only thing you can say is that their use of your/your'e was wrong. You didn't even stand up for yourself... They do have a point... why post this if you didn't want a lot of people to see it...
"They do have a point... why post this if you didn't want a lot of people to see it..."
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but reading comprehension would be nice. I never said that "I didn't want a lot of people to see it," I said that because this is a personal blog, and therefore not directly connected to a wide audience, the writing isn't (nor does it have to be) of journalistic quality. Meaning that the review is obviously one-sided and unprofessionally aggressive--but since this isn't a newspaper, I think that hardly matters.
Try and read a comic about the dark kight before you go and judge the movie because it is pretty accurate of a movie dumbass and better then the old movies that Tim Burton directed.Why would the director of the dark knight rip off other movies to make this movie you are overly thinking on things and trying to tie things that have nothing to do with it together into some kind of critizisim and you fail.
A Dark Night For Dark Knight.
First off, thank you so much for finally recognizing the intrinsic value of this film; ie. nata. "The best damn movie to keep ignorant saps drooling over the sobbing poet's two dimensional darkness that they envision (and live) in their post {liberty} 9-11 communities." My girlfriend and I just saw the movie and were absolutely disillusioned. Not only were we mortified and confused by the lack of Batman (no character, no batcave, no batcar, no bat morality, nothing.) Nothing but what seemed to us as a two and a half hour brainwashing piece of propaganda bent on the need and necessity of forgoing your rights for the common good. Fascism at it's finest. The whole of the American Right Wing could not had formed a better recruitment instructional video or montage. Forget your superhero, Watch for Super Uncle Sam, bent on controlling your needs, so you don't have to. {isn't it worth forgoing a few freedoms for the betterment of all-who really liked life, liberty, and stuff.}
He knows when you are sleeping...he know you're on the phone...he digitizes your image up and Saves you from yourself.
This movie has no intrinsic value but for the glorification of anti-terrorism squads and the proliferation of big brother. Most of you are in a very sad, very "Dark" place, and it just might be one of the most depressing displays of modern ideologies that any of the ideas prevalent in BDK should ever be acceptable. The physics were generally imposable, the morality raised only momentarily in "Nurse Joker" (the only humorous moment as well,) IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT NOT WALKING OUT ON THe dark knight.
Do you honestly think The Dark Knight is objectively worse than Hancock or Disaster Movie? What a bunch of inflammatory garbage.
Well, I'm sorry the prosaic symbology of the dichotomies wasn't up to par with Children of Men. Sorry, but that isn't really the goto movie for realism, pal.
omg wake up and smell the coffee, our freedoms are being taken away. just look at the USA. This movie is a total allegory for the corruption of freedoms. Well I'm sorry if all you did in school was play your gameboys, and trade pokemon cards, like the freaking tools you are. The fact that you are all so blind to this makes me loose all faith in humanity. Apparently Nathan Fisher, myself, and my boyfriend are the only people here smart enough to wake up and smell the mountain of bullshit. Furthermore, what ever happened to respecting peoples opinions OR presenting a VALID AND INTELLIGENT counter argument, oh ya, you guys must feel sooooooo smart and special calling anyone who disagrees with you a dumbass or a moron etc.
I totally agree with this review. This was the most pretentious movie I've ever seen.
At the end of the movie I felt I was attending an ethic-course for idiots. It seemed that some high-school teachers had come up with the brilliant idea to dress up like the Joker and Batman to do a little role playing so they could educate their ADD pupils in cliché theories about right and wrong.
It was just horrible.
It was like serving an episode of Miami Vice or the A-Team while trying to convince the audience they are watching the Godfather.
Either make a nice Batman movie with some good action and an exciting story, or make a real intellectual movie with a slow pace and really good actors, so you can give the depth such a movie needs, but don’t try to combine the two, the result is a bad, ridiculous pretentious, overrated melodrama.
some people are just bitter...
Stupid, stupid movie. Maybe we could start a class action to be compensated for the time we wasted in the cinema watching this drivel.
Thank you for your intelligent review. Perhaps it will save the lucky people who have not seen it yet some money.
The explosions in this movie were vey realistic...The initial bomb blasts in the hospital were due to non-fluid-based bombs. So was the police station bombing with the implanted cellphone...which was very possible...just cos you thought it was disgusting doesn't mean it is a point of general negative critical review.
The more devastating and fiery latter explosion of the hospital could easily have been done either by using liquid based bombs or by rigging the hospitals gas supplies.
I do agree that you aren't an expert on explosives, but when it is one of the major objects of your critique, i suggest you have a factual basis for it.
And concerning your other complaints, most are pretty subjective...
And i have spoken to a doctor friend of mine about two-face's burning, and he said it was pretty realistic...The left side of Dent's face is soaked in an accelerant, which is ignited, completely burning and charring the skin on the left side of his face. His left eyelid is completely burned as well as most of his cheek, exposing his jaw muscles and the inside of his mouth. They were sort of sticking to a source material, and hence only half of the face could be burnt. It has nothing to do with lack of originality (you mention it is similar to the terminator).
Nor does the 2 ferry sequence...it was totally different in meaning from that poor scene in spiderman (that scene was like the anticlimax of that movie... it was circumvented).
why so serious??
Oh thank GOD that someone else in the fucking world could recognize that a realistic critique of this movie isn't taboo because of Heath's death. If that rotting bastard gets an Oscar we all know it's just for the sake of a feel-good moment. Sir, I thank you. I'm loving the comments from the offended myspace/facebook drones, slamming you for not liking the latest fad, Dark-Knight-mania. Seriously, they sound like the kids from middle school who got offended if someone didn't love the latest Blink-182 single, claiming that the offender just couldn't bring himself to understand the complex poetry of "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah." To everyone here, enjoy wiping the ejaculate off of your "Why so serious" Ledger posters.
I can´t belive I found someone who saw the same shit movie that I saw, and not the great-ultra-blowing mind blah blah that everybody say it is.
I saw it last night and I was infuriated. I think you can tell if the movie is serious stuff why the little details. For example: when Aaron Eckart (I don´t belive he is harvey Dent... or a cook, or anything more than a grown-up dicaprio) is in the court and this man aim him with a gun. and he is smashes him off, and is applauded, there you say "Weeeell, this is the begining of a beautyful wagon of crap"
Again I can´t belive have said all the thing you wrote (very well writen review, by the way) without have actually read you before
In my country (I live in Argentina) a movie ticket is costing a lot of money, so I thought is the fear of not making they money worth what makes all this people say that is "the best movie ever" blah blah. I realised I was wrong, people like it all around the world. What I am trying to say is that we have to make our money worth by demanding good films, and no good publicity, and not fall in the simplicity (stupidity) of "It just a film, relax"
Well my friend. I could go one slashing the Nolan Bros and his dreadful movie, but I can´t in a comment. Hope you do fine, and know you are not alone in this sea of bullys. Hope someone bullys me too
See you around!
Rafael from Arg
shut up you idiot. it's a movie. you fail to understand the movie you retard
GET A LIFE NATHAN! How long have you not seen sunshine, nerrrrrrrd!
yo retard should have start goin to psychologist and do something for your own good instead of making critics about things you obviously can't appreciate. I honestly can't say that the movie was great but aw man how can ANYONE say that it's the worst movie of the year??? In a way the headline of this article says: "the guy who wrote this is kinda retarded and enjoys himself saying bad stuff about other peoples work." If you want something to be realistic watch the world out of the window but damn why do you go to the theatre for reality?? If you expect a Batman (fuckin comic book guy!!!) movie to be realistic, well... what should I say?.. Your article is nothing but the subjective view of someone who didn't even try to enjoy the movie. Please, do world a favor and don't write critics anymore cause you obviously don't know how to.
i pity you... i really do... you obviously dont know what movies R for. they should entertain you and make you wonder. You use them just to criticize them. maybe it something you trying to heal from the past? abuse from the parents or something. am sorry for you...
hey! wanna know why you don't like it, because you didn't see it. The only people who think it sucks are dumb sissy's like YOU. Yeah I said it. OH and FYI I am a girl And i saw it because i am not a sissy, i read comics. I have been a BatMan fan for the longest time.
OH and your little friend who said Bring Back tim burton, Forget you. Just go watch the Corpse bride or something. Oh and Christian Bale can act. So you and your little stupids who think it sucks, Go Watch It, and stop being sissy's for once OKAY! So me and these other batman fans are on the path to SMARTVILLE while you and your Girl friends are on the path to your shrink, wait in understanding to you, the PHYSCO mall. WHY SO SERIOUS!!!!! Look this garbage is yours...
nathan_fisher said...
"They do have a point... why post this if you didn't want a lot of people to see it..."
I never said that "I didn't want a lot of people to see it," I said that because this is a personal blog, and therefore not directly connected to a wide audience, the writing isn't (nor does it have to be) of journalistic quality.
If you were a student of film, you would take off the training Undies and actually do something that doesn't involve you peeing in your pants while watching movies. And the things that happened to Harvey Dent, Can actually happen, Or did that already happen to you. You Know I dispise People like you. Just letting you know. send this to all memberS by email, ask them if they think i am right. And this is coming from a 14 yr old. YOU JUST GOT SOLD. I am filled with sLAUGHTER. Get it! cause the joker.
This is only anonymous 'cause I'm not making an account on this site, this is a guy named Ben, so you know I'm not hiding my face-- believe me, I love it when people know how I feel, I don't hide behind a mask.
There are professional critics out there who do, in fact, go to a movie or play or whatever just to critique it-- granted, the best critics will mention both the pros and cons of the film in question. Though you don't like the movie, tell us some of it's saving graces. I read a bit of the critique and got a small bit of satisfaction from the one or two pros I read, but overall, all I got from this was a rant from an angry pre-teen.
whoever doesnt like da dark knight ur a fucktard.it was awesome.get ur head out of ur mums ass nathan just scared wat the joker looked like. i bet u ran out of the movie half way through cryin ur eyes out because of the joker
everyones against u nathan aka son of a bitch
I don't know if you'll read this, Nathan. My only comment is that PEOPLE GO TO MOVIES TO HAVE FUN. I had a blast at the theater seeing the movie. I disagree with your analysis on a few points, but these have nothing to do with the film's level of quality--just logistical bullshit. But it's okay. If you ever want to talk about it you know where to find me.
I like the way you write, though. A whole lot!
I just cant understand how they could copy terminators face when " 2 face " has existed for over 70 years u dumbass!!!
And so what if terminator copied batman, who cares omfg....
Do you really think its the worst movie of the year??? to be honest kung fu panda might be the worst movie of the year!
Let's move on to something new not just stick to Tim burton for ever i mean, please!
Ben your a retard, omfg what a passy, i mean do you really think i care if you feel good or bad....go suck ur mommas hams u bullcrap.
fuck you Ben!!!!!!!
Oooh im anonimous....uuuuuuu so i dont fucking care bitch.
Ben your a retard, omfg what a passy, i mean do you really think i care if you feel good or bad....go suck ur mommas hams u bullcrap.
fuck you Ben!!!!!!!
Oooh im anonimous....uuuuuuu so i dont fucking care bitch.
Ben your a retard, omfg what a passy, i mean do you really think i care if you feel good or bad....go suck ur mommas hams u bullcrap.
fuck you Ben!!!!!!!
Oooh im anonimous....uuuuuuu so i dont fucking care bitch.
Ben your a retard, omfg what a passy, i mean do you really think i care if you feel good or bad....go suck ur mommas hams u bullcrap.
fuck you Ben!!!!!!!
Oooh im anonimous....uuuuuuu so i dont fucking care bitch.
Hey nathan, although I cannot disagree more with you on various points, it's sometimes nice to read another's review, even if it's my own polar opposite. Well, for the most part it is.
It was well written, and let's be honest, you went through it with a fairly fine-toothed comb.
As a fellow student of film, we can probably easily agree that most of the interpretations and 'flaws' of the film would undoubtedly be in there, somewhere, and somehow. It's Hollywood.
I agree about the movie being over-hyped. But I can understand that building excitement and rush, also. Think about where movies made after graphic novels/comics have been wallowing the last 15 years. The same place comics started to slip to, the bottom of the barrel.
Regardless of the flaws of the film, I can say this about it. I enjoyed it immensely. I am also glad it stands as one of the few movies that bring back a franchise (in this case the Batman movies themselves) back in line to what they should be, in my mind, anyways.
Most of the comments on the entry don't surprise me, there was a freaking tidal wave of hype building, and we know it's a movie hailed all over as a 'masterpiece.'
And to be honest, considering the genre of movies made after comics or graphic novels, I'd tend to agree for the most part.
As some award winning bastion of superb film making and storytelling? Yeah, there's been far better, but why build yourself for disappointment? I think a large portion of the "negative" reviewers have some ground to stand on, but waver too deeply off tangent, and take the movie for more than it was meant for.
But I don't blame the reviewers, I blame the hype.
-Cheers
Oh and for the record I couldn't agree more about the effect choices for Two Face.
It ruined the character like I only thought the acting of Tommy Lee Jones could.
The terminator picture made me laugh hysterically.
You are the fucking worst review critic ever, you clearly havn't seen this movie fully, why the fuck is it the worst anyway?! I know we both have diffrent opinions but my opinion is that you fail to watch movies and your the worst reviewist ever!
U Have down syndrome!!!!!!!!
fair enough, every has an opinion and is free to express it. i liked the movie. it reminded me of reading a comic book. the sparse dialogue would've fit neatly in floating balloons and many of the scenes would've worked as panels in the book. it wasn't the best movie ever, but as comic-book movies go, it was pretty damn good. sure there were flaws, but what's perfect? it's just a movie. i don't think nolan intended realism to the degree of what we experience on a daily basis, but a super-hero movie that is based in reality...just not necessarily ours. how much more ridiculous is this than all the other action movies that feature a barrage of bullets that miraculously miss the hero? or that hoary old cliche of "saved in the nick of time"?
it's no classic. it's not something that our descendents will look at with awe. it's just a movie.
lol u kinda cant rely on dis ste coz som ppl say dat da dark knight is real bad and some say dat its real good.personally i think dat dis movie was awesome and nathan fails at watchin movies....(wat is he doin? he hasnt replied in ages....)
hav fun to the person whos goonna read all of these comments.....
Some of you guys are absolutely rediculous it makes me sick.
First of all anyone who left a short comment either agreeing or dissagreeing with this blog, disregard this.
Secondly, to the person who posted this, i respect your opinion and willingness to post such an article for millions of people to badmouth you. You do however overanalyze a movie but THATS OKAY!
Lastly, to anonymous, the one who decided to rip on the author by insulting his intellegence, "It makes sense that your an eighteen year old snot." Honesly buddy, get a life. When i read ur post all i saw was rabble rabble" Thats all u did was critisize the way he wrote. Here you are comparing him to a retarded school kid(and i know those arent ur exact words, so i dont wanna hear you didnt say that). But honestly! Who are you? Please tell me! All i see from reading your post is some random asshole critisizing someone else on his own believes on a particular movie. And the only way u can do that is by making fun of him on his writing. To me you are no different from some highschool jock picking on a school nerd for his appearances. I can see the future now...those nerds people like you pick on grow up to being scientists and chiropractors, something that actually is meaningful to this world. Then there is people like you, the jocks, who grow up to be stupid football players who can't even speak without saying "you" every five seconds.
Here we are to this day arguing about something meaningless like who is stupid due to their poor interpretation of a Batman movie. Man don't i feel good to know how far advanced our country is and the way we got there is through constant fighting about meaningless bullshit.
Honestly dude, get a life. Quit being a ballbuster. You act like you are "Top of the Line" and "superior" but you are nothing better than the author of this blog.
PS: God forbid someone in this world actually dislikes/hates the movie and has the balls to actually express it to someone. People in this world have had to deal with the problem of expressing themselves and dealing with the negative feedback for years and hear you are still dealing with this problem. I hope you feel proud of yourself. You douche
You bitch too much, shut up
Well, you are a good writer, and you obviously know. It was well written, to say the least.
I don't really think you believe this movie to be the worst of the year, but you title it so to get attention. (Success!) Watch Babylon AD, ha.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.
I feel bad for the people who go into a near unanimously-acclaimed successful film simply with the intention of finding why Ebert and Roeper are wrong (I'm sure your prowess as a film analyst exceeds). Of course, that article was your opinion. And this is mine :)
You sir are a fucktard.
I so the film just yesterday,
and i like it,
it break down the wall of films
with a standards hero
who kill all the “bad boys” that are trying to make a lot of money in an illegal way,
save everybody, and in the and merry the women that loves.
There is real life, in those dialogs, there’s spirit, and things are more of the time out of control,
The plans burns down, nothing come as predicted, love moves actress, but the end is just as many times it is in real life,( purposes, not everything is done for money, are the ideas that move the world)
Actress to good
Especially joker
Surprising wayne, when I so that his gone a play batman after watching it in American psycho, I think that batman it’s not for him, but he show that he is a great actor with a lot of faces.
I just can say this films is made by
Emotions
Surprising
Effect
Class
A good dam scenario
With a lot of philosophy inside
dude what are you talking about exactly???because honestly your spelling and grammar is terrible
You suck at life, buddy. This movie was a work of art. It should not be compared to ANY other movie, including Terminator or any nauseating Tim Burton movie. You have to be deaf, blind and a vegetable to not appreciate a film like this. Do people pay you to critique movies? Either way, you need a new hobby. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. A-hole.
the movie was totally awesome man!!!i cant believe that some ppl hate it.i agree with the ur mother guy dis movie IS a piece of art and shouldnt be compared
Firstly, the tell was perfect because it underscores a point: That the movie failed to see its purported "realism" to logical conclusions. Secondly, Harvey Dent's face looked like CGI garbage, and if you knew anything about burns you'd realize the musculature would not have been well preserved. Edema would have resulted in swelling, and puffiness, and the face would have blotches of eschar, which would cause the muscles to fuse together. If you are a top notch director or CGI artist, you do your homework on little details like that. It's clear the production designers just tried to do something that looked new, and "cool" and did something that will be looked on by posterity as ridiculous as the Red Skull in the 1990's Captain America.
This movie is a piece of art to mindless witless potato mongers who are too stupid to care about the cinematic medium. You will spend the rest of your lives trying to remake a product that was flawed to begin with because like all the other lemmings you are willing to sit and eat anything that the hand from the sky drops on your precious little pates. This movie was crap on so many levels, and it would do you some good to sit back and actually listen to people who know more about filmmaking than you do.
i thought this movie was good but mellanumi in my opinion was correct that harvey dents face looked pretty crap.
Look I'm gonna simplify this argument to the bottomline: Those who think this movie is the ultimate Batman film are either 1) Those who aren't as intimately familiar with the history of Batman as they should be 2) think that Batman should be uber-serious, uber-didactic and ultimatley move and act like Robocop or 3) Think that Japanime is the only legitimate animation because it's "more grown up" and "darker." Once again I point to Frank Miller and Bruce Timm who have both said that The Dark Knight is an interesting take, but it's done humorlessly as if the helmers didn't get the full picture. If you want to see the best incarnation of Batman, watch the 90s animated cartoons. They were serious, mysterious, dark, edgy, well written, thrilling, suspenseful, and action packed all at once. And they never sacrificed the spirit of the character for hardware. They went back to the source material. For those of you clowns who want to think The Dark Knight is most faithful to the source material, you are just plain wrong. Since most of you have only read the Modern Age Batman starting circa 1986 with the Dark Knight Returns, go back, reread that book, and see how Frank Miller updated the character without divesting him of his old school roots in pulp adventure. And realize that while The Dark Knight Returns was very very dark, it was full of social parody as well. Like a good freaking comic book should be. Ultimately, you morons are wetting yourselves over a cut and paste, straighter than an arrow movie, with no room for imagination.
Your just one of those tools u think they can bring down a giant corporation with a couple of pages of crap. I bet everyone who posted a comment didn't read you so called Critique they just scrolled down to see how many people think your a load of shit. The Dark Knight show a darker and deep feel to batman which is the way batman should be viewed and it was ten times better than Batman forever. Batman forever was useless. Who ever directed that should shot them self for even trying. The Dark Knight is one of the top five films of all time. So who cares if two face was unrealistic it look great as a first inpression. And plus u were properly so retarted that you walk into the wrong movie.
u just summed up everything that i wanted to say for the ppl who didnt like the movie
I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't care for this film. I agree with most of your critique. It was a lot of hype and overly so with the untimely death of Heath Ledger. The movie was ok at best. One can only hope this stupid hype over this film dies down soon.
i did not go to see this film to hate it or moan about it but when i left i thought it was dull, predictable and far too long. The make-up of two face was poor for a film of this budget. All of you jumping to its defence seem to be missing the point of what this reviewer is saying, he is not criticising it for not being realistic, he is saying that this is a problem because they went on about how realistic it is. And dont even get me started on that voice batman put on, what was that about?no really come on. It was worse than the x-files film and that is saying something (By the way so dissapointed in that x-files film as i was a big fan). danielle xx
TDK was one of, if not, the best movie I have ever seen. And i KNOW i'm not alone on that. You, my friend, must have been dropped as a baby atleast 124695 times to grow up and not be able to know a frigging AMAZING movie from a bad one. I think that if you can't find any good in a movie you should just stop watching them. We don't want you sitting next to us in a movie theater criticizing everything about the movie.
ps. Go shove your head up your ass, F*ck-tard.
GREAT REVIEW! Finally, someone saying many the same things I feel, and, to be honest, probably saying them better than I ever could. It's hard to disagree with the majority opinion on this movie when literally everyone, it seems, loves it as though it were manna from heaven. Of course, that's not the problem with the fandom. Like what you wanna like n' love what you wanna love. Everyone's tastes are different. But so many of the fans of this movie are so rabid and closed-minded (as I'm sure you can tell by the majority of the comments you got on this post) that it's become difficult to even have a voice of dissent be heard over the clamor, the hype, and the shouting of the fanatics telling the minority to "shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down."
Kudos to you! Dissent is important. To hell with everyone who gave you shit over it!
pls try to be smater next time Chum and dont just be those fools that just hate movies because there overrated!!!!!!!!!!! try to open your eyes next time you see a movie
That's right!!
You suck!!!! man, what are you, deaf, blind, and a fucking retard that you can't appreciate one of the best movies in ages.
U probably live with yo mama and couldn't see the movie because it wasn't in your fucking minimum wage salary so you're criticizing it!!! SO GO TO HELL!!! YOU SUCK!!!
Everyone that criticized you is awesome and you're just a freaking retard!!!
Wow I just wasted a small part of my life reading this crap you've got to be one of the dumbest fucking people on earth to not understand and like this movie the acting was good this was way better and far more realistic then burtons batman ledgers joker was far better than nicholson's and he was closer to the comic which is what comic movies are out there for comic movies are out there to do justice to the comic and dark knight did just that. To the 3 virgins that didnt like this movie have fun not getting laid while you live in your mom's basements and talk about how much you hated dark knight but loved beverly hills chihauhua
My god are you serious!?!?!? I watch the movie at the iMax in birmingham and I wasn't even a fan of batman but I have to say it is one of the best films I've ever seen! Heath Ledger was the best joker ever. End of.
Well said.
C'mon, people, it does suck. So much so that it's got a dedicated website now, That must give you some indication....
http://thedarkknightsucks.com/
Check out the `honest reviews' section for more intelligent reviews like the one above.
Scifi/superhero/fantasy films dont have to be realistic as such but they MUST be believable. TDK is nowhere near.
oh right yeah we all know you suck even more
" So much so that it's got a dedicated website now, That must give you some indication.... "
The fact that something has a website never has (and never will) indicate anything about its validity. I could get on Geocities right now and create a website about anything I want and that has no bearing on whether or not its true.
As for your review, Nathan, it was well written but rather biased. I realize this is your personal blog and therefore you are under no obligation morally, legally or otherwise, to make it so. I believe where we are running into the most trouble is with the title... "worst movie of the year" seems excessively inflammatory.
When you go to review a movie, you have to leave all of your preconceived ideas about the film behind and see it for what the film IS... not what it was supposed to be.
That being said, if you were to throttle back on the negativity a bit I wouldn't mind seeing your name on more reviews in the future, provided you can cure yourself of your bias.
Thanks for the comment; I agree that this was posted, originally, as even intentionally inflammatory, and that may damage its credibility.
However, it still provides my arguments, presented admittedly brusque, in a manner that I think explains why this particular film is flawed and overrated.
The title may prove to be an anachronism before long--I will be posting Best/Worst lists at the end of this year (i.e. very soon), and, although near it, The Dark Knight will not be at the bottom. :)
......Although I do not agree with what you said, I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Really? High School Musical 3, Meet Dave, Space Chimps, and a slew of others, and this was the worst of the year? You watched this wanting it to suck, and every argument you present is completely wrong. If I took the time to correct every flaw in your logic, I'd end up writing almost as much as you, so I won't bother. But you are way off base. Honest critique my ass, you're just trying to piss people off.
dude.. you are way right... it was a seriously stupid movie... and the fact that it was hyped so much only made the experience of being dissapointed that much worst.
Yeah, this movie was long and boring; I was so amazed by Batman Begins, and I was hoping for more of its brilliant delving into the main character's psychies; sadly, this movie was just violent crap and Bob Kane wouldnt have recognized his Joker!
thanks for your good review/opinion. It's nice to see that not everyone has been brainwashed yet :)
I agree with you that the
Dark Knight was not a great movie..
The script wasn't bad, but did
fall foul to meaningless, silly
one-liners ..
It was also too fast moving as
though nobody was to notice any
mistakes ..
Nolan ruined a poptential
masterpiece ..
David Kearney
www.wolfhoundman.com
Ok. You are entitled to your own opinion, but blatantly bashing it is unacceptable. "Oh, it was un-realistic." Its BATMAN. If Batman is supposed to be realistic, then I'm a zombie. It is based on a COMIC BOOK. The comics had cheesy one-liners and stuff, so to accurately represent said comic, you need the one-liners. And besides, I know movies that are WAY worse than this. Lets see.... The Love Guru. Beverly Hills Chuahua. Don't mess with the Zohan. And a whole lot more.
Batman Begins was pretty sucky.
But compared to it,The Dark Knight is a pure pile of shit. EVERYTHING in this movie was so bad. The story, the acting...
Can't wait to see a third bat-movie directed by Nolan.
The amount of poo he's going to throw on the screen...
It's going to be fucking awesome.
I don't think it was the worst,
but it certainly wasn't that great,
as it had a lot of mistakes in it ..
also, I didn't like the fact it
was fast moving, it kinda ruined
the film for me ..
If it wasn't for the Joler,
one could forget it and the
Batman coctume was awful ..
Thanking you
you claim that the movie deserves no recommendation because it lacks realism.
But is that why we watch movies? For the realism?
No.
People watch movies because movies mock realism through imitation but also through exaggeration.
If you knew that, you would give The Dark Knight 5 stars for its excellent portrayal of realism through the use of non-realism, which is the purpose of all film. But you don't know that.
Or you DO know, and you just want attention by going against the flow.
Cuz if you REALLY had something against non-realism, you wouldn't have written this review, because you would still be stuck in the 1980's evaluating all their non-realistic movies.
TDK was the worst movie i saw in 2008.
Hmmm . . . the worst movie of the year? I don't think I share that sentiment. Granted, I think that THE DARK KNIGHT had some serious flaws - especially Gordon's fake death and the movie's last half hour. But it wasn't all bad and I enjoyed it.
Post a Comment