# Am I the only one who hated The Dark Knight?



## Lemmy (Mar 30, 2011)

Yeah, I said it. I'm a big fan of Batman, but I really, really hated The Dark Knight. And what's worse, I probably won't even bother watching The Dark Knight Rises until it hits DVD. I won't even bother with the blue-ray. I have my reasons, though.

First of all, there's the sorry excuse for the Joker. Yeah, I know, Heath Ledger died and all that. I'm sorry for him and his family, but dying doesn't automatically make you the best actor ever. And let's face it, he's not exactly the only one who has died when making a movie. What about Brandon Lee? He died when making The Crow, but you didn't see him winning a whole bunch of awards for it.

Second, let's talk Joker. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the Joker be funny? Yet we had a movie that lasts more than two hours, practically introduce Joker right from the start and yet give him _one _joke? It's even right there in the name. Joke. Joker. Chew on that for a bit, then watch Dark Knight all over again. He. Isn't. Funny. Joker is funny. Heath Ledger's character isn't.

Third, there's Joker's backstory. Or to be precise, he didn't have one. He's one of the most interesting characters in the entire Batman universe and even Batman's nemesis, and yet they didn't bother tell us anything about him. His father cut him and created the smile? Um... so? Scars like that should have healed by now. And what about the skin? The hair? The insanity? 

Fourth, there's Two-Face. Personally, I liked him a lot more than I liked the Joker. He felt a lot more like the comic book version, and he was a lot more true to the Two-Face we know. He's not good or evil. He's just... doesn't care. He flips the coin and does what it tells him. Heads, you live. Tails, you die. Either is fine with him. Setting him up on a little revenge crusade was fun, but even then they managed to let him stay somewhat true to the Two-Face we know. And the CGI was pretty good, too. So why was he ignored just because Heath Ledger died? If you ask me, they could have made an entire movie based around him.

So let's discuss Dark Knight Rises a bit. Can it possibly be any good? I doubt it. If you look at the confirmed characters (*spoilers!*), there's Catwoman, Bane and some Carmine-guy. The son of the guy in the first, I think. I fail to see how Bane can lead an entire movie on his own as the villain, and Catwoman is just annoying. She can in theory be a great character, but I have yet to see anyone care to try. Seems her only mission in the Batman-movies is to be sexy. Which she fails spectaculary at. And the Carmine guy? We already have Bane and Catwoman. Do we really need a gangster now? Might as well bring Robin back and really screw it up.


----------



## Culhwch (Mar 31, 2011)

Welcome to the boards, Lemmy.

I kind of agree and disagree with you about _The Dark Knight_. When I first saw it, I didn't really like it at all, and was surprised at the acclaim it drew. I put that down to two things - Nolan's reputation at that point (he probably could have filmed cattle grazing for three hours and fanboys and critics would have lauded it as the greatest piece of filmaking ever), and, rightly or wrongly, Heath Ledger's death.

I immediately thought the film was far too long and convuluted, and could have used a lot of editing down. I watched it again recently, and I did actually like it more the second go around. I still thought it needed to be shorter, though. I thought the most natural thing to do was to climax with Harvey's disfiguring, and then carry Two Face into the third movie as the feature villian. I thought it was a bit of a waste to build the character up so well (and Eckhart did a great job of that), and then kill him off so quickly. If he is dead, I guess...

I liked Nolan's vision and Ledger's execution of the Joker. Nolan always wanted to ground these films in some semblance of reality, and leaning towards the Joker's purely psychopathic side does that. The Joker was the highlight of the film to me. The skin and hair? Well, again, the realistic bent lent itself to that being make-up and dye, and I think that worked really well. The insanity was definitely there, though. I also thought his backstory was handled well. I'm not a huge devotee of the comics, but my impression was that the Joker's backstory is always a little in flux , and that he himself kept it that way, telling different versions depending on his mood. Nolan reflected that in the film, with the two different stories the Joker tells.

As for _The Dark Kngiht Rises_, firstly, I think that's a fairly dire title. Catwoman I can take or leave, but given the choice I'd probably leave. I'm interested to see what Nolan does with Bane. But I'm not nearly as excited for this movie coming off _TDK_ as I was for _TDK_ coming off _Batman Begins_.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 31, 2011)

I wouldn't say I hated it. I thought it was okay but a bit overrated. I think Heath Ledger was a decent Joker but the judgement of this was probably influenced by his untimely death.

 I think the judgement I use personally of how I view a film is how much I want to watch it again and, in this case, not very much.

 And finally, let's face it, there can be only ever be  one Catwoman...the astoundingly beautiful, very funny and  purrfectly formed Julie Newmar


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 31, 2011)

In my overly simplistic manner, I'll just say that I don't think an Academy Award should be given just for licking one's lips repeatedly.


----------



## biodroid (Mar 31, 2011)

I thought it was very good, better than the first and Heath was a better Joker than Nicholson ever will be. It was quite a complicated movie, I must admit that the fun factor wasn't as good as I thought it would be but when the pace picked up it definitely made up for the loss of fun in the beginning.


----------



## ravenus (Mar 31, 2011)

Hahaha, I liked the film a fair deal (a decent enough comic book flick and immensely better than the whiny borefest that was *Batman Begins*), although like I may have earlier said, Heath Ledger as the Joker was one of the most stupidly overrated elements. Jack Nicholson and  Cesar Romero from the campy TV series >>>> Heath Ledger as the Joker. In fact, I was hugely biased against Ledger after this film and it was only in *Brokeback Mountain* and *The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus* that I saw the legitimately talented actor from whom great things could have been expected had he not passed away.


----------



## Lemmy (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm not saying Dark Knight is a bad movie, and Heath Ledger was a great actor. All I'm saying is I hated  DK. I completely agree with Harvey being a great character, but we got too little of Two-Face. And yes, I think he's dead. Keep in mind Nolan intended it to be a trilogy, so the next one will come to a natural end. Whatever the heck that means. And if the rumors about Catwoman, Bane and that Carmine-guy are true, that's too many villains already. Why would he add Two-Face into that mess as well? I think one hero and one villain is enough most of the time, unless they are a team like Batman and Robin.

But what I hated most about Dark Knight was simply that it was incredible boring. Joker was insane, yes, but other than that, he was just a regular character. Scarecrow was in, but only as a cameo. Two-Face was there, but died too soon. And up until Harvey got disfigured, the whole movie felt like a romance-movie with the Bruce Wayne/Harvey/that girl love triangle. Great for Twilight fans, not so much for Batman fans.

Then there are the boring characters. There's Joker, Batman/Bruce Wayne, Harvey/Two-Face and... um... it's a two hour movie. And I can't even remember the names of any of the others. Although come to think of it, Commissionaire (so not the correct spelling...) Gordon was there, but didn't make much out of himself. And Alfred, or Bruce Wayne's named cameo butler, to be precise.

So skip to Dark Knight Rises. (Rises? In the final movie? Shouldn't Rises be the middle movie or something?) Nolan wants to keep things somewhat realistic, so how can he put Bane in there? And if this really is the last movie, he should go all out with a great cast and the deadliest villains yet. True, Bane did break Batman's back, but other than that incident, he's just not interesting. And we're talking DC Comics here. There are tons of villains he could have used instead. DC Comics have lots and lots of heroes and villains, yet Nolan decided to go with two of the worst for the final Batman movie. This should be fun...


----------



## soulsinging (Mar 31, 2011)

Culhwch said:


> I immediately thought the film was far too long and convuluted, and could have used a lot of editing down. I watched it again recently, and I did actually like it more the second go around. I still thought it needed to be shorter, though. I thought the most natural thing to do was to climax with Harvey's disfiguring, and then carry Two Face into the third movie as the feature villian. I thought it was a bit of a waste to build the character up so well (and Eckhart did a great job of that), and then kill him off so quickly. If he is dead, I guess...



I agree with it being too long and convoluted. In fact, when I watch it, I usually quit with about 45 min to go (right about the time the hospital blows and Harvey is set loose). The Joker is the bad guy the whole movie, and his ending feels totally anti-climactic with all the Two-Face stuff after it. And you're right that they build towards Two-Face well, but for a long movie it all ends up feeling way too abrupt. 2 hours in with a great villain and interestingly conflicted hero, suddenly there's a bait and switch and said villain takes a back seat while all the focus is suddenly on a bad guy only created in the last 45 min of the film. It doesn't work.

That said, I think Ledger's performance was amazing. I vastly prefer the mysterious psychopath approach to the lame typical gangster dropped in acid that Burton used. I had my doubts because I didn't think Ledger could pull it off, but he all but disappears into the role and is totally unrecognizable. I also happen to think the Joker is funny in exactly the way the Joker should be. His games with Batman, the way he demands the phone call, his reaction upon being arrested, the pencil thing, the way he tosses his drink before "downing" it at the party... he's like the Mad Hatter. Honestly, I'd probably never watch the movie if not for his performance. I happen to think it's one of the best villians in cinema history. He rivals Hannibal Lecter in terms of being both brilliant, creepy, and mysterious.

That said, my expectations are low for the next one. I loathe catwoman and the actress they picked seems totally ill-suited to the role (then again, I thought the same of Ledger). This might be the first time a Superman movie tops a Batman movie.


----------



## Tonk Rivers (Apr 1, 2011)

Firstly I still have a scar from when I was four years old, that was twenty six years ago. Scars like that don't heal all the way my friend. We never truly know how the Joker got his scars, because he tells a different story every time.

Secondly Christopher Nolan. Every story he makes is about a dead wife or a dead mother or a dead girlfriend. They all have the same feel etc etc. Not to say he is a bad filmmaker at all, but he is predictable. Given the source material in batman, that makes him even more so. 

Why do film critics love him?? The unfortunate truth is they don't read many books and don't have much to work with. If Nolan were an author he would be middle of the road, as a filmmaker he surpasses many others due to the dire and kitsch state of film making.

As an actor I dislike Christan Bale, he is enough to turn me off any film. My pleasure in watching the Dark Knight was to see him as the central character utterly by surpassed the rest of the cast, in particular, Heath Ledger.

Anyone saying Ledger only got the award because he died probably needs to familiarise themselves with his body of work. In particular Two Hands and Brokeback Mountain. If you can watch his performances in those two films (Two Hands being one of his first ever roles) and the Dark Knight and say the kid didn't deserve recognition by his peers I will be very surprised. Name one nominated actor that deserved the award that year more then he did.

The Dark Knight is a mediocre movie with a mediocre lead and mediocre writing. I think  given that and the film was still so wildly successful shows how strong his performance was.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 1, 2011)

Tonk - At least someone is trying to make complex yet entertaining movies. I wouldn't say the writing is mediocre, I haven't seen any other movies as complex yet fully understandable except for Inception. The Dark Knight was voted as one of the best movies ever made next to The Godfather I think which says a lot.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 1, 2011)

Tonk Rivers said:


> Name one nominated actor that deserved the award that year more then he did.


Okay. Robert Downey in *Tropic Thunder* was tremendously more entertaining and full of flair than Heath Ledger in his Joker avatar.


----------

