Print This Post Print This Post

Why I Hated The Dark Knight

Boy did I hate this movie. I hated The Dark Knight so much I couldn’t wait to leave the theater 20 minutes into it. And this is from someone who bought into the word-of-mouth buzz and sat down totally geeked to see a wonderful action flick. I didn’t go in intending to hate it but with the foregone conclusion that I’d love it, so don’t think I went in with a closed mind or contrarian agenda.

I’ve read the rave reviews afterward just to try to figure out exactly what it is I missed that made this movie supposedly so great. Instead my only conclusion is that there are just a lot of rabid fanboys and intense Heath Ledger fans combining to form a massive wave of delusion. This movie is nowhere near the masterpiece its supporters claim it is. Not only is it not great, it’s not even good or even competent on most levels.

The incessant need to try to be “realistic.”

There are two problems with this movie’s “realistic” angle. First, Christopher Nolan seems to think “realistic” is simply another word for “boring.” Almost everything that makes the Batman character fantastic and larger than life is excised, probably because Nolan finds these elements  silly and unrealistic. Batman’s fighting style is toned down so that he’s not doing any high-flying gymnastics or flashy martial arts, just a visually dull fight style consisting of extreme, incomprehensible close-ups on repetitive body blows, elbows and arm grabs. And even worse, these fights are all shot in the dark with lots of quick cuts, which I guess is somehow supposed to increase the realism through incoherency.

We have a boring Batmobile with no bat insignias, oversized scallops or anything that indicates it’s supposed to have a Bat-theme. Because driving a cool-looking bat-shaped car would just be too ridiculous. Joker can’t have permawhite skin like the comics because that’s also unrealistic, so he just wears sloppy face paint.

When I bring up how dark, dreary and joylessly boring this movie is, people respond “it’s supposed to be realistic.” Why’s the fighting and action so badly shot and dull? “It’s supposed to be realistic.” Why’s Gotham City so bland and generic now and no longer has a unique character and design like in other Batman adaptations? “Realism.” And so on and so on.

Which leads to my second problem with all this realism: IT’S A MOVIE ABOUT A BILLIONAIRE WHO TRAVELS THE WORLD IN ORDER TO BECOME THE WORLD’S SMARTEST, MOST HIGH-TECH CRIMEFIGHTING NINJA THAT EVER EXISTED, THEN RETURNS TO HIS HOMETOWN TO DRESS AS A GIANT BAT, DRIVE A WEAPONS-LOADED MINITANK, AND CLEAN UP ALL THE CRIME IN THE CITY BY ESSENTIALLY SINGLEHANDEDLY PUNCHING IT IN THE FACE EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. AND NOW HE’S GOING TO FIGHT AN EVIL CLOWN. So please tell me…what type of mental case creates or watches a movie with a premise so clearly meant to be inherently ridiculous and then turns around DEMANDS REALISM?

It’s the exact kind of premise that works best when you embrace how preposterous the premise is and respectfully have fun with it anyway. This is what made the Burton Batman so great. It took the source material seriously but not too seriously, while keeping the fun, over the top stuff for the people who appreciate the more wacky and exciting aspects of the mythos. It had something for almost all ages and tried to enjoy itself.

Besides, for all those attempts at realism, once The Dark Knight introduced a villain with a half-handsome/half-monster face with a giant, functional eyeball despite the eyelid being burnt off, it was automatically catapulted into the realm of cartoonishly unrealistic anyway! So Nolan might as well have left  the other whimsical elements of the Batman mythos in.

Chris Nolan can not shoot action.

He simply sucks at it. His camera work is horrible. You have a general idea what’s going on in the fights, but it’s never really clearly shot. We have a general idea on how he flipped the truck using the batwires, but it’s not exactly clear what was happening or how he knew it was going to happen. Outside of the explosions, nothing else in the actions scenes worked; they just came off frenetic, claustrophobic and clumsy. Very, very clumsy. The New Yorker provides a very accurate description of Nolan’s action scenes:

Men crash through windows of glass-walled office buildings, and there are many fights that employ the devastating martial-arts system known as the Keysi Fighting Method. Christian Bale, who plays Bruce Wayne (and Batman), spent months training under the masters of the ferocious and delicate K.F.M. Unfortunately, I can?t tell you a thing about it, because the combat is photographed close up, in semidarkness, and cut at the speed of a fifteen-second commercial. Instead of enjoying the formalized beauty of a fighting discipline, we see a lot of flailing movement and bodies hitting the floor like grain sacks. All this ruckus is accompanied by pounding thuds on the soundtrack, with two veteran Hollywood composers (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard) providing additional bass-heavy stomps in every scene, even when nothing is going on. At times, the movie sounds like two excited mattresses making love in an echo chamber.

Disingenuous, hypocritical moralizing

This movie tries to have its cake and eat it too. It is cynical, depressing and ugly throughout, showing everything ugly about society and human nature, yet it pretends to ultimately be about hope and rising above the evil. The Joker is effectively presented as the moral center of the movie, the only person who not only stays true to his code throughout but never even questions his beliefs or wavers from them. Batman is weak and indecisive, letting people die on his watch regularly, agonizing over every decision, and even trying to steal a woman he loves from her fiance while claiming to admire said fiance.

Harvey Dent, after being shown to be such a beacon of integrity, immediately becomes a psychotic mass murderer and attempted child killer after his fiancee dies and he gets burned. The whole movie seems dedicated to proving the Joker right about society and showing that only he had anything resembling a consistent moral code. But wait! At the end there are two boats that don’t blow each other up (barely). So obviously people are not so bad, right? Oh, and Batman doesn’t kill. So that makes Batman morally superior to the Joker and also proves the Joker wrong again. Yay.

Except Batman kills Two-Face about five minutes later with no problem!! What’s the point of putting so much value into the fact that Batman won’t kill, presenting his inability to kill the Joker (and even going so far as to save him) as a moral victory over the Joker ONLY TO HAVE HIM KILL ANOTHER CHARACTER FIVE MINUTES LATER? And if killing is okay after all, then why does the Joker not deserve it more than Harvey? It’s one thing for him to not proactively kill the Joker, but for Batman to actually expend the effort to risk his well-being to save the Joker from falling to his death?! The same guy who let a villain die in the first installment? (Remember the quote, “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”?)

Also, although the boat scene is supposedly shows that human nature is not so bad and that the Joker is wrong about how despicable society is, is that the image that really comes across? In actuality, if you stop to think about the scene, the message is much more cynical. It’s all about moral relativism. The boat scene teaches us that the authority figures, the police, are no more moral, in fact maybe even less moral, than the death row criminal, who is the one who actually does the right thing. If anything, that irony to me supports the Joker’s worldview of society’s authority figures as being populated by unreliable, hypocritical frauds since the police and civilians don’t do the right thing while the murderers actually have more of a conscience.

The message is that the average person who follows the rules or is in charge of enforcing them, when under pressure, is at the end of the day no morally better than your worst death row murderer. So even though the Joker lost because the ships didn’t blow up, he has still proven to be sort of right about the ugliness of humanity.

Moving the Goalposts

I already know what the #1 defense from fanboys regarding this movie is going to be, “Oh My God, it’s a comic book, get over it, it’s not supposed to be realistic, get a life!” And you know what, I agree, it shouldn’t be realistic. The problem is, I’m not the one that set this standard of realism, it’s the creators of the movie and the fans of this movie that did that. I judge a movie according to the standards it sets for itself, and the creators of this movie clearly want to present an adult, high Art, pretentious movie that we should take as seriously as any other sophisticated arthouse movie. This so-called gravitas and unflinching “realism” is exactly what this movie’s fans tell us is so great about it.  They claim it’s a psychologically intense tour-de-force along the lines of the Godfather 2 or Silence of the Lambs, and just as grounded in reality.

Yet once you accept the premise that this is meant to be a realistic, adult, intellectual and high Art movie and start judging it by those standards, then you have to start taking it to task for the limitless ways it fails in plot mechanics, characterization, motivations and logic under those higher standards. Viewing this movie by the standards of realism means you start pointing out the myriad of endless  plot holes in this movie, ridiculous coincidences and senseless occurrences, like the utter stupidity of the cops at every turn (for example locking the Joker up without ever bothering to remove his makeup and send a picture of his unmade-up face to every federal and local law enforcement bureau in an effort to uncover his identity, then leaving him unprotected and not handcuffed in the interrogation room guarded by a single cop, even though he’s proven to be badass enough to fight the Batman and wreak total mayhem across the city?)

And once you start critiquing the movie according to realistic standards, these exact same people change their tune and start saying “What do you want, it’s only a comic book movie! It’s about a guy that dresses up as a bat! It’s a superhero movie! What do you expect, Shakespeare?!  It’s not supposed to be realistic!”

You can’t have it both ways.

And if you are going to practice selective realism, why only select using realism in areas that will make the movie more boring and incoherent and illogical? So we can’t use suspension of disbelief to make the Joker as visually unique as the comics and previous movies with chalk-white skin and creepy red lips and actual green hair. We can’t suspend our disbelief and just have a guy who is rich and has cool gadgets for fighting crime with no deeper explanation; we must forever be bogged down with tedious details describing the “process” by which he gets every last toy. We’re not allowed to suspend our disbelief enough to have fantastic, over the top fight scenes like you see in movies like Kill Bill and Die Hard 4, movies that are somehow less ashamed of superhero comic conventions and the laws of physics than this actual superhero movie. We’re supposed to accept boring, incoherent plodding fighting instead.

But what we should we save our moments of suspension of disbelief for according to Dark Knight and its fans? Plot holes and wildly illogical story sequences! Using suspension of disbelief for anything that would make the movie more escapist and fun is forbidden, but for anything that makes the movie a more incoherent, jumbled and illogical mess, then it’s okay to accept the unbelievable.

See, I watched Spider-Man 1 and 2 and both movies were loaded with plot holes. How was Peter Parker able to put together such an expensive and complicated looking costume if he’s poor? How is it that the only two people in town who end up with superpowers happen to know each other? And don’t get me started on the improbably coincidences and the laws of physics broken throughout both movies. Yet in those movies I totally don’t care about the plot holes because Sam Raimi obviously shows us that the movie is in no ways meant to take itself seriously, therefore minor plot holes aren’t a big deal.

It’s tongue-in-cheek, unafraid to embrace the more ridiculous but entertaining and fun conventions of the superhero genre and is unashamed to be unrealistic in order to have some damn fun with the premise . So for his movie, I don’t bother to apply the same stringent levels of judgment regarding plot holes and logic. Nolan, on the other hand, seems ashamed to be doing a superhero movie and tries to excise everything superheroic he can get away with excising from the movie, opting for pretentiousness instead. And ironically he ends up with a movie less in touch with humanity than a movie like Spider-Man 2.

Overly manipulative

As the Daily Mail said, “The Dark Knight an unintentionally sick spectacle, pretending to justify law and justice, but in reality celebrating violence and chaos.” A commenter on the website rottentomatoes.com said it way better than I ever could, so I’ll just quote him:

I kept getting exhausted and repulsed by how The Dark Knight continually had its cake and ate it too, by how it shoved oppressively bleak moments in our faces, then turned away from them later on: Gary Oldman gets shot, and we have to deal with his wife breaking down and screaming at the policeman who inform her of his death; but a half-hour later: no, he’s not really dead! We have to watch minute after minute of prisoners and civilians on two different barges decide whether or not to detonate explosives rigged to the others’ boat, and linger over their “screw everyone else, I’m totally in it for myself” rottenness (and *no one* on either boat stands up and says, “stop these madmen!” — but oh yeah, then the prisoner decides to throw the detonator out the boat window, and the civilian decides he doesn’t have the heart to go through with it — so you see, folks, the moviemakers finally demonstrated to us that these people REALLY aren’t rotten after all, even though they’ve just forced us to deal with five straight minutes of odious human nature. And then we have to endure another five solid minutes of Aaron Eckhart’s character’s holding a gun to a child’s head, to possibly avenge his girlfriend’s death, while Batman stands by and does nothing except to try to talk him out of it. So many scenes seemed intentionally designed to make us all feel powerless against society’s innate evil, and linger over and shove the rottenness of humanity down the audience’s throats. The constant foisting of fear and oppression and helplessness, going hand in hand with vigilante justice (and even an indirect justification of the Patriot Act, with Bruce Wayne’s radio-monitoring device) made me wonder if Dick Cheney had co-written the screenplay. My wife and I left the theater both wondering out loud, is THIS the movie that our country really needs to be tuning into right now? But of course, we’re only two small voices amongst the movie’s $150 million opening weekend, and after all (as so many fanboys are quick to point out), “it’s only a movie.”

 

Forced chemistry

I was so glad I didn’t see this on IMAX. First because the action outside of the explosions was horribly shot, so seeing it on a big screen would have done nothing for me. And second because the close-ups of Maggie Gyllenhaal were painful enough on a regular screen, seeing her on IMAX would have made it that much worse. I just can’t buy a powerful DA and a billionaire fighting over a chick who resembles a sad turtle or a cabbage patch kid that’s all grown up. You mean to tell me that Bruce Wayne has that gorgeous ballerina, who is shown to actually have a scintillating intellect to boot, and he’s pining over a homely girl that looks over 40? And it wouldn’t be so bad if she had a sparkling personality, but she just came off sanctimonious and dull. What a step down from the Kim Basinger days.

No nuance or subtlety in the Joker.

Fans are clamoring to say that finally the Joker was done right, like the comics? Give me a break. The Joker is not a hideously scarred, limping, stooped over creep in the comic books. In the comics he actually looks on fight sight like he’s bordering between creepy and harmless. That’s exactly what makes him so cool. He can look like a harmless clown on the outside at times, harmless enough that children would approach him, but beneath that clownlike exterior belies the unpredictable, and psychotic murderer underneath. It’s a great dichotomy: he looks like a somewhat creepy clown or jester, immaculately dressed in a pressed suit, but he’s a nutty loose cannon that can go crazy on you at any minute.

In fact, cognitive dissonance is one of the reasons I think Batman and Joker work as archnemeses on a subconscious level: the one who looks more likely to be the bad guy, a dark avenging demon of the night, is the good guy; the one who looks a brighter and happier clown is actually the psychopathic force of evil.  However Nolan has created a bad guy that blatantly looks crazy and psychotic and depraved from the moment you see him, before he even speaks, like Leatherface or the blonde Japanese guy from Ichi the Killer.

When you see Ledger’s Joker, there’s no doubt from the beginning that you are looking at a depraved lunatic, that subtle cognitive dissonance you get from seeing a fun looking clown also switch into psycho killer mode is taken away and instead you just see a guy that looks like a sick serial killer acting like a sick serial killer. (I think Ledger did a wonderful, although overrated job, and I don’t blame him for the lack of subtlety. I think he was playing exactly what he was told to play, and he did it well).

Plot holes and bad scene transitions galore.

Batman leaves a party of billionaires upstairs alone with the Joker to save Rachel Dawes. The Joker was up there searching for Harvey Dent. We never cut back upstairs to find out what happened. Did the Joker just give up and leave? Did Batman even try to go up and catch him? We never find out because it just jumps to the next scene. The movie is loaded with tons of inexplicable scene jumps like this, like when Harvey and Rachel are suddenly kidnapped.

How did Joker plan in the beginning heist for the kids’ schoolbuses to have such a perfectly timed gap in between them for him to drive his own schoolbus into during his escape? They just drove behind each other in congested traffic with a huge enough gap between them for another school bus to just jump into? And Joker somehow planned for this?

Bruce Wayne is shown as unable to do anything technical without Lucius Fox’s assistance, even to change his costume, yet at the end he miraculously can suddenly singlehandedly use and upgrade the sonar trick Lucius Fox showed him earlier and create a program to somehow make every cell phone in Gotham City broadcast a video signal that he can watch through some space-age lenses that cover his eyes in the Batsuit and are fed through a supercomputer in his secret lair. (So the Joker having chalk white skin and having over-the-top fun fight scenes are too ludricous for Nolan’s “realistic” vision, but that crazy tech wasn’t?)

How about how ridiculous Gordon and Batman’s plan was of faking Gordon’s death and just transporting Harvey while hoping the Joker would attack…yet when it happened they still seemed totally unprepared for it. A commenter at imdb.com nailed it (found through The Dark Knight Sucks):

If I understand it correctly, Gordon faked his own death (even though it?s edited to make it look like he got shot for real) to protect his family. Batman then decides to announce who he is but Dent takes his place. The Joker intercepts the Dent convoy but is himself intercepted by Batman. Carnage ensues including the destruction of large parts of the Gotham road system and various buildings and, seemingly by fortune, Batman, the Joker and, the driver of the convoy who is, of course, Gordon, reach a point at which the Joker is captured. Unfortunately for them that’s what he wanted all along.

So: doesn’t make very little sense when you try and add it up from characters? POV. Why would Gordon legitimise such a ridiculous plan: there?s no guarantee it would work and he’s placing the lives of his men and Dent in very real jeopardy because he knows the Joker is coming for them. Batman may suffer from incredible pride but there?s no way he could have planned, forseen or even imagained such a successful scenario as him flipping the Joker?s truck, faking his defeat and Gordon?s reappearance because it all happened just metres away from his vehicle. The Joker needs Dent for phase 2 of this particular plan os his attempt at killing him is self serving. He needs to be caught AND he needs the guy with the phone in his stomach to make it with him otherwise he?s got no way to get Lao or the money. He surely should have walked into the station with his men a la Se7en!

I put this to a friend and he suggested the whole “agent of chaos” angle which doesn’t work for me because Dent, Gordon and Batman aren’t agents of chaos and that’s the force they’re fighting against. If the Joker had initiated this then, yes, I could agree. But this is their party which the Joker crashes.

And even more plot holes. Okay, Harvey Dent is supposed to be some hotshot District Attorney right? And his fiancee is a rising star Assistant DA in his office? And they spend all their time together? Well let’s look at their stellar legal work in action, as described by Dark Knight Sucks:

Well, the writers must have been a bit more lazy on the day they wrote the segment where Rachel and Harvey were trying to nail Lau on something. Particularly, they were trying to use Lau as a means to incriminate all the crime heads in Chicago (I mean Gotham).

Apparently, they got Batman to go all the way to China, risk his life, illegally kidnap a Chinese citizen who had not been convicted or even indicted on any US-based crime, and bring him back for questioning and they didn?t have an actual plan. They had NO IDEA what to nail him on, they just knew that he was the money-man for the mob. So, when he finally admits to being the banker for numerous criminal organizations, Harvey has a eureka moment with Rachel and blurts ?we can get them on RICO!?, presuming of course they can prove just one of the organizations pooling their money with Lau had committed crimes.

A bit of education: RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) is a US federal law. That means HAD that been the case that Harvey chose to pursue that path, he would have to hand over the entire case to a FEDERAL court, taking it completely out of his hands to prosecute – his jurisdiction was at a city level for Chicago (I mean Gotham). He was not a federal prosecutor. If he was, he would be referred to in the movie as a United States Attorney. If some want to argue semantics that he was a federal attorney and merely referred to as a District Attorney, that argument will fail because such positions are appointed by the President of the United States. They are not elected to that position, as is the case with Harvey Dent (it?s pretty clear in both the viral marketing and election context of the movie).

That was just one flaw with that segment; another flaw is the fact that Lau’s lawyer just stood there doing nothing while Harvey and Rachel were using unjust tactics to pressure him to talk, making implications they would place his life in danger based on how much he cooperates. Because, without those tactics, they didn?t seem to even have a clue of what to get Lau to admit to which might implicate the criminals they were after.

So basically these legal eagles didn’t think of the RICO statute, simply the most obvious and most-used statute used against the mob, until a EUREKA! moment occurred during an interrogation.

Batman is impotent in his own movie.

A good villain should be a step or two ahead of the hero throughout the movie. It keeps it exciting, and you want the hero to be challenged. But at some point there should be a scene where there hero turns it around and ends up getting ahead of the villain and outsmarting him once and for all in the endgame. This never really happens. The only “victory” Batman gets is when the two boats don’t blow up, which happens out of dumb luck. It could have easily gone the other way. Batman didn’t actually save those people, they saved themselves, no thanks to him.

He spends the whole movie jumping through the Joker’s hoops, and even when he physically defeats him, it still seems like part of Joker’s plan. Then he sends Batman to chase after Harvey Dent, showing Batman that he corrupted someone thought to be uncorruptible. Chalk up another victory to the Joker, and another instance where Batman is two steps behind the Joker.

But at least Batman got ONE moral victory in right? He still doesn’t kill, right? He managed to stop the Joker without killing him or letting him die. Too bad five minutes later even that victory is undermined by Batman killing Harvey Dent. So Joker not only corrupted Harvey Dent, he got Batman to kill at the same time. Great job, Batman! NY Magazine has a great piece on the impotence of this Batman throughout the movie:

From the beginning of The Dark Knight, Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne/Batman is only the fifth- or sixth-most-interesting character in his own movie. (The Joker, Harvey Dent, Gordon, Rachel Dawes, and even Alfred the butler are more intriguing onscreen than Batman.) Sure, it’s not uncommon for criminals and supporting characters to be flashier than the superhero in a comic-book movie. It is uncommon, though, for the hero to serve as Batman does in The Dark Knight as little more than a patsy: just one of Gotham’s wind-up toys, serving only to be set in motion by the Joker and sent into yet another trap. Unlike in most superhero movies, Batman isn’t two steps ahead of the criminals, or even of us; instead, he’s constantly behind, until even the audience can see the plots developing, and Batman’s investigations making things worse.And so throughout The Dark Knight, Batman himself is further and further marginalized, made more and more impotent. Batman can’t stop the violence, can’t crack the case, and his inability to comprehend the pure malevolent chaos that the Joker represents costs dozens of Gotham residents their lives. In so exhilaratingly illustrating the expression of that pure chaos , and in the dire straits it eventually puts our so-called hero in, The Dark Knight can be read as a philosophical argument against superheroes in a complicated world.

[EDIT: Originally I had a section here speculating about why this movie was so popular, but I've since removed it.]

Let the flaming begin.

192 Responses to “Why I Hated The Dark Knight”


  1. I liked The Dark Knight, but I will admit you make some good points here. However, I think your biggest problem in this article is the constant attacks on every comic book fan who liked the movie. We’re all 20-30 year old losers who need this movie to somehow validate us according to you, and I think that’s horribly unfair and unwarranted. Okay, you didn’t like the movie, that is fine. You defend yourself well and you attack what you see as flaws in the movie. All fine. But I am a comic fan, who is between 20 and 30, and I liked the movie not for its supposed realism (which I grant is subjective as hell), but because of the moral choices it presents, the characterizations, and the fact that it is clearly a middle chapter where the hero loses, to hopefully come back stronger next time. You may reasonably disagree with those points but they are different reasons than you suppose every comic fan has.

    Using my own views to refute your argument is perhaps not a perfect defense of the movie, of course, but my point is more that you shouldn’t just lump your entire opposition together behind a banner that doesn’t really fit, and is patently insulting as well, isn’t a perfect attack on it. So you may want to consider that.


  2. You are absolutely right. I felt sometimes I had to like the movie because my fan boy friends would crucify me if I hinted at the shit fest that was this Batman movie. I appreciate you going so far to write this page! I will pass it on!


  3. Jesse:

    We?re all 20-30 year old losers who need this movie to somehow validate us according to you, and I think that?s horribly unfair and unwarranted.

    I don’t think all 20 and 30-something comic fans are losers. I’m a comic fan in his 30s myself. What I do think, and it’s a trap I myself fully admit I used to fall into, is that many comic fans feel a need to justify their hobby by “proving” to people how adult and mature it is. No one can ever just admit anymore that one of the biggest draws of superhero comics is that you get to see two people in cool outfits beat the shit out of each other in the most fantastic, outrageously exaggerated and unrealistic ways. Everything has to be complexity, complex characterizations, deconstruction, etc. Let’s be honest, if that’s what was really the biggest draws of these books to us and why we as comic fans are so drawn to them, we could easily get all those things done much better from other sources like epic movies, great literature and some independent comics. What those things can’t do bette than comic books though is deliver a kick-ass, knock down, dragged out slobberknocker superhero battle. My point isn’t that adult comic fans are losers, it’s the opposite. I’m saying they shouldn’t feel like losers and should be happy embracing superhero comics for the fun, entertaining and often clever junk entertainment that it is.

    DM: Thanks for stopping by and commenting.


  4. A) Like the movie or not this one hell of a post. I couldn’t imagine you when the movie was over, I bet you wanted to run someone over.

    B) You should have went to see it in right state of mind (wink wink). It makes for much better viewing.

    zprs last blog post..i like sex


  5. Amen, brother.

    Exhaustive reading, but finally I know what I didn’t like about the movie… THE WHOLE THING.

    There are just too many things that doesn’t work.

    Thanks for a magnificent post.
    Alex


  6. sigh. I love you to death T, but i have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I’m a 30 year old comic book fan just like you. I enjoy the escapism that fantastic storytelling can provide but at the same time i’m older and more mature so I genuinely enjoy more sophisticated storytelling and plot. These two things are not mutually exclusive but at the same time they don’t necessarily have to exist in the same place at the same time.

    I can’t speak for everyone who’s admitted to loving this movie. Because even though 10 people might agree on some precise course of action they might all do so for 10 different reasons. But your criticism of this movie, to a large degree, is predicated on a one-dimensional characterisation of adult fanboys. And this isn’t to say that that description isn’t completely accurate in most cases, but it really has nothing to do with the movie and more to do with why those people liked the movie. Basically you’re problem is not so much with the merits of the film itself (though you have your gripes about it) but with the level of adulation given to it compared to your own opinion of it. but here’s my question:

    Why the fuck do you care?

    I loved the movie and i was only slightly enamored with Begins. But I had my own reasons for loving it. You brought up some great points about the movie. But honestly, at the end of the day I was captivated and satisfied. Now is this because i’m a cultural philistine who can’t appreciate good story strucure, character development and realistic issues? Of course not. I’m not even saying that this movie had all of this or didn’t.

    But this is a movie.

    While its fun to analyse and appreciate various aspects of a given film, ultimately its purpose is to provide entertainment. And to the extent that it does is the extent to which I say i like it or not. Now some movies i enjoy because of the accumulation of various film making techniques that create what film buffs would consider a “masterpiece”. But sometimes a movie’s value is made up of more than the sum of it’s technical parts.

    I too thouroughly enjoyed the Burton Batman. I also enjoyed the campy Adam West Batman. But i’ve never even thought of comparing any of them to each other. They are three different movies. Same characters but different takes. And I understand that you want to judge this movie by its self professed merits. But you have no idea to what extent the director held himself to that standard. Sure he mighta came out in an interview and said “I want this to be more realistic.” But does that mean he had a “Realism checksheet” for every camera shot, every line of dialogue, every story beat? I’m sure he gave himself some latitude.

    Now insofar as he made parts of the story more realistic YOU found it boring. and when he chose to embrace some fantasy or belief suspension YOU found it to ring false. That’s fair. But that’s also your opinion. I found little in the movie to be boring. I didn’t mind that gotham looked like chicago or that rachel dawes isn’t a 10 or that the batmobile looked like a tank. i still enjoyed the story. I’m not saying YOU should. and if you do it might not be for the same reasons.
    But your animosity towards this movie is, IMHO, is more a function of everyone else’s REACTION to it and less about the actual cinematic experience it offered you.

    Final point. This is the exact opposite of when indie/foreign/underground fans get up in arms when they’re favorite film/artists doesn’t get much attn. Like the mere mention of a mainstream artist at the exclusion of an unknown one is a crime against humanity. My take is: WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU CARE? If “MC Backpack” goes platinum tomorrow or if every cohen bros. movie opened #1 at the box office, how would your life change? What difference does it make if 10 million people share your opinion as opposed to 10 thousand?

    And if you can be unconcerned with the level of popular discussion about your favorite unknown project, why be concerned with the level of popular discussion about a well known project?


  7. Interesting post, however I disagree with a lot of it. In regard to your point about plot holes, the answer is simple. The movie is supposed to be realistic, not real. Believe it or not, there is a difference. Quoting someone who goes into actual laws and positions that exist in the real world in order to highlight how the movie goes against its supposed mantra of realism, is illogical. Clearly none of this could or would happen in the real world, that does not mean, however, that the psychology can’t be based on possible psychological reactions to extreme conditions and that it has to rely on comical scenarios or magic for entertainment value. If anything, in this case, being realistic means not being silly (which is my real problem with the earlier Batman movies).

    In regard to your point about Batman being impotent (aside from what is clearly your opinion about what a villain “should” do), I disagree. The fact that the people on the boat didn’t blow it up shows he is not impotent. If you remember Batman Begins, the whole reason the he even became Batman was to be a symbol that inspires people to do good and scares criminals (things that he couldn’t do as Bruce Wayne which is something that his father didn’t realize in his attempts to clean up Gotham). So the boat not blowing up is actually proof of him not being impotent. Also, it’s not 100% clear that Batman killed Harvey Dent/Two Face, in fact most people believe otherwise, so that’s not yet another victory for the Joker.

    In regard to your point about the Joker, I’m not sure what clowns you have seen but anyone in clown make-up and a suit (which is what the iconic Joker wears) is not going to appear like the clown you would see at a child’s birthday party. No part of the Joker has ever appeared harmless. I do agree that Nolan took it to a new extreme, but that is precisely what I liked about it. If anything, this Joker was a newly subtle and nuanced masterpiece. In terms of psychology, someone who is crazy enough to be the Joker is probably going to exhibit the behaviors that he exhibited. He only limped when he was in the truck crash, so that is not really an exhibited behavior but his constantly tonguing his scars, his hunching over, his never telling how he got the scars are all behaviors that could be exhibited by a psychopath.

    The fake moralizing and depressing points are both really problems with the way that it was written. I liked how dark it was and Batman actually didn’t kill anyone so it wasn’t really hypocritical. The same is true for your point about Nolan not being able to shoot action.


  8. I don’t thing that T was condemning 20-30 year olds for liking comics – he obviously does as well. What he’s arguing against is 20-30 year olds corrupting what comics are all about in order to “justify” their tastes to people who think that comics and comic movies are immature. And the sad thing is, it never works; if you tell an Art Film fan that you have just seen a “Batman” movie, they are going to look down on you, no matter how “dark” and “gritty” it was. And who gives a f**k what the Art House crown thinks anyway? Too much good popular culture has already been ruined sucking up to these snobbish nitwits. Let Batman be Batman. Say it loud: “I like comics, and I’m proud!” (with apologies to James Brown).


  9. I’m no comic book geek and I really could care less about the Batman comic legacy but I thought relative to other mindnumbing summer blockbuster shit fests that require mental retardation for two hours, this film was good. Does it have plot holes? Yeah. Was Maggie G miscast? Yeah. The films flaws just weren’t all that distracting to me because I was contemplating the films larger themes all of which were very sophisticated for a summer blockbuster. I didn’t expect a summer movie to be dealing with such heavy stuff without moralizing or being pedantic. Fuck, you can tear apart Star Wars and Titanic if you want but at the end of the day they will still be the highest grossing films in history and the reality is this film is poised to supplant one of them.


  10. Well put Df. At the end of the day this was a summer blockbuster and not an arthouse flick that was released in the dead of autumn. Comic books, superhero stories and blockbusters in general are tales told with broad brushstrokes. Were this a story told in a more episodic form (say as an HBO miniseries) I’m sure some of the storytelling would have been tighter. But ultimately, most people enjoyed it because, like DF said, people contemplated the larger themes instead of getting hung up on relative minutiae.

    And Phil hit my nail right on the head. The point of these films was to be more realistic not necessarily to be 100% real.
    Again, this doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to find the film’s realism to be boring and its fantastic elements to be off-putting. But don’t begrudge someone else for feeling a different way about it all.

    I’ve been a Batman fan from day one. I read Wizard magazine every month and pretty much kept abreast with all the hype going into the release of the movie. But even with Heath’s death and all the Oscar buzz I still wasn’t overly hyped to see the movie. I wanted to see it but I wasn’t frothing at the mouth the way I was for some of the Star Wars movies or Kill Bill 2 (I actually was more gassed to see the Watchmen trailer). But I left that theatre excited, surprised and satisfied. And that had nothing to do with a need to justify my fandom to the mainstream public, or to justify a promotional hype that, for the most part, is lost on me.
    It was simpy because I was given a great cinematic experience involving one of my favourite heroic characters.


  11. Wow you need help my friend seriously. Well the hell with that WHY SO SERIOUS??? Someone certainly got a lot of time on their hands to write about hate. I watched the Dark Knight and loved it I still think Begins was a little better though. But Enough of that lets go back to this long criticism. In all honesty this long criticism is not very good because it is full of anger and hate. Go out and be happy watch the olympics or something but do not crucify Chris Nolan and the writers and actors for all the hard work they have done.


  12. TSK, TSK…TSK.

    why so serious!!.

    i guess, some lil deprived lil boy.
    never read the actual legendary alternative to the regular dC batman titles, the dark knight.

    you show your ineptitude to the source material.
    go read a comix, or two, namely the legendary contribution by frank miller. if the box office receipts are able to make hollywood scriptwriter stick rigidly to the source material. i think you won’t like many of the films, that darkknight will hold honest to the source material in adaptation.

    your review and criticism shows you:

    one, never read a frank miller contribution in your life.
    two, it also shows you are one of the people that DC/WB tried to appease when they ran the original batman franchise into the mud with joel schumaker.

    also,…..batman has no superpowers, i don’t think you understood that, or the idea that he is the next generation’s sherlock holmes.
    now granted sherlock holmes was a coke, heroin, and opium user, if they were to put sherlock holmes into a film that was an adaptation, of the source material. i would want that tidbit, and wrinkle included.

    from your review, i believe you on the other hand, want the sherlock holmes in the deerhunter hat, who is brilliantly sober. with no, background into how he became so intelligent. while also, handling the death of watson, and an even crazier moriarty. at least in the books, you knew holmes was high, and plausibly thinking outta the box, to apprehend and solve crime.

    at least in batman, we know bruce is actually brilliant and uses luscius[morgan freeman's character], as a foil to illustrate his technical wizardry. the batman character never just went to order, parts without any source knowledge of what he was designing. you also, missed the part of the film where, bruce actually designed the plans, of the next batcostume, as well. which was the setup, and paid homage to all the previous bruce wayne characters as well. even, in batman’s haste to create the batcomputer, and use it. bruce shows his duality in that instance of the movie. plus, batman this point needed to be tackled because in the regular dc universe batman is always at the helm of the device. the movie picked into the morality of privacy that, in the regular DC universe batman always, violated consistently.

    i mean seriously, you are the reason hollywood is so messed up, because you don’t really have an interest in this type of genre. yet, hollywood used to bend over backwards to appease this ignorant fan, for the sake of a dollar. well darkknight is finally the solidified effort that will make literary conversions to film standup and hold true to the literary source material. that drew large enough, in critical acclaim, and revenue, that warranted it become a movie franchise, in the first place.

    you are the scourge of the earth that has devalued every subculture and genre in the entire world. from metal, punk, rocknroll, blues, and most importantly hiphop, and our cultural contribution music wise of rap.

    you are the enemy, and your thinking is the sole reason, why subcultures are swallowed and bastardized.

    Art Barr

    go read the dark noir ABSTRACT source material, THE DARK KNIGHT. penned and penciled by the legend, FRANK MILLER. See, what his aim and scope was that helped to usher realism into comix, and make them evolve, and stand in the context of time. then go tackle, the rest of miller’s classics including the runs on sincity, and most importantly daredevil. get educated on what you are missing, because you are missing a lot.


  13. also,…i have a review, of the dark knight. it gives the psychology, of the fan of this type of movie and what we wanted. plus, the reason why the source material shouldn’t be violated, compromised or amalgamated as well.

    HEY JOE,

    Art Barr, here…granted this is my first review here at the tomatoe….I have to say i usually don’t post anywhere else except for my message board home at:

    FORUMS.SOHH.COM

    Granted, that place is under reconstruction after a heinous hacking to the online hiphop community. I needed an outlet for my posting, review, rant editorial addiction. So here is my first entry into, the ROTTEN TOMATOE, and my first tomato review.

    before we get started, I need to let you in on my style. it is brash, unadulterated stream of consciousness online rant masterful mastery. woven with scathing editorial, and personal opinions, chock full of pop references, which, I use as mechanical metaphors.

    plus, the most important component; I only review material i have a vast knowledge on the subject and tone of. meaning you won’t catch me doin a review on material that isn’t great or moving. Plus, additionally, and most importantly, i won’t/don’t comment about anything genre wise. unless, i know some tidbit or fact, of the creators lineage or stylings. meaning, i know exactly what the phuck i am talking about, usually and typically. unless i note so, in the early stages of a review to set the tone.

    if i tackle a subject i am unfamiliar with, I will note so, and also give the reasoning behind why i am tackling that review. which usually will be because i was so moved, by the artistry. or, just plain discusted by the lack of intelligent knowledge and omission of components which should have been included in the material. granted that is the reason why i am reviewing;

    THE DARK KNIGHT

    one, because as a former comix letterer and penciler, watching comix book movies is always a great confidence builder. I even went to comix school for two years and was taught by the penciler of SPEEDRACER, norm dwyer. Plus, writer, rapheal nieves. Who might i add was the first writer to supply a similar death, to the one that the joker gives the bodyguard goon in his run on hellstorm. except instead of his writing including a pencil, and a “trip and fall” sequence. raph’s included, a close to but not so similar death by a beverage straw. So, when i heard they were adapting the dark knight. i hoped to be getting, an incredible journey in watching the licensing of a comix book character come to life, on the big screen. most importantly watching the compromise live and in color on THE BIG SCREEN. i mention compromise, because in the comix book movie genre a lot of compromise is done. namely, on the characters and lineage presented in the comix to make the material a gateway for newbie and general fans. Plus, and most importantly as a homage tool to reel in credibility from the consistent drawing fan medium. so with that said, i present my review of:

    THE DARK KNIGHT

    Initially, I will tell you:

    I AM A MARVEL GUY, when it came to comix. my whole life has been spent pretty much championing anything marvel, and shunning anything DC, for most of my life. I have to also, say in my MARVEL allegiance. I would have to mention that, BATMAN titles, were a guilty twotiming turncoat addiction. i would sneak and read all the time. especially for the small story arc nature, or one shot stories. I am not sayin batman, was one of my monthly titles..but if i was bored or there was nothing out. I would go grab a stack of batman comix, and not worry about quality. get all my needs met, and appeased by any of the numerous batman comix, especially detective. One of the chief differences between MARVEL, and DC is. DC is owned by a larger conglomerate, WARNER BROTHERS. which means they are global. generally when it comes to their franchises, they create a wholesome product when put on a large drawing medium and scale. Mostly all DC characters suffer from dilution when put into a larger realm, and BATMAN & SUPERMAN, are two franchises, which suffered greatly because of their gloabl reach, and WB’s dilution. I lived through the gawdawful DC relaunchs and tries to make BATMAN, & SUPERMAN relevent, or current. As, DC broke batman’s back, and the franchise. then, inserted AZREAL, as a brooding killing batman, in a new cool suit and the whole garbage behind it. Plus, watched as they failed miserably to re-right the franchise, through almost DALLAS where is bobby, ishedead like similarites, in Bruce’s recovery. Let’s just say that in this movie they didn’t wane or dilute the impact, or the literary genius that miller supplied into the original story. nor, did they forget the rollercoaster ride, it took to tell the incredible tale, while also getting across the softness, that DC under WB had become stifled from. So, if you are a MARVEL guy, and are used to BATMAN being soft. that story arc, and component make this movie TOTALLY an incredible experience. AS, the screenplay includes that ripple in their product. But, in hall of fame like fashion, fashions that detail into one of the most riveting film contributions, in the comicbook genre history.

    granted there are redeemable qualities, and more important stories that DC has given the comix world which some will say eclipse marvel. I have lived that storyline, and watched as vertigo, which really is the line of comix that was bought out by DC, that gave them the superior literary nod over, MARVEL. Vertigo comix line, is basically the line of comix that gave DC its acclaim at literary genius, and basically saved the line of comix, at DC from credible hell, in the mid to late eighties. Vertigo opened the door to save DC, as did the WATCHMEN[which was probably the most confusing title, and departure from typical comixbook stylings to read as a kid, but incredible.] being a child of the seventies though, i had been reading comix, and most importantly drawing comix almost most of my life, since three years old actually. One thing was always a constant, till the mid to late eighties, and before vertigo was bought out by DC:

    MARVEL WAS ALWAYS BETTER THAN DC, WHOLEHEARTEDLY

    The initial softness that WB, shackled onto its leading franchises in superman, and batman. Usually act as an inhibitor, but in this movie, this factor to uphold their softness, bolsters this film incredibly. it creates an incredible dialogue tackled in the plot climax of this movie in a conversation between BATMAN, & a defeated JOKER, BRILLIANTLY. i mean UTTER, SHEER BRILLIANCE, brilliantly played, magnified, honed, and owned almost solely by heath ledger. just his nuances, physically, plus his incredible depth, in small pieces of this film that act as a sort of origin to the JOKER, psychologically, as a character will have you spellbound, and wishing you could have more. WHEN, i tell you this JOKER, is better than any joker ever, in any batman adaptation, ever.. i am not playing. literally, LEDGER’s joker is the character lenghtening joker, in exact detail that gave spiderman new life, when TODD MCFARLANE, drew the hook spidey eyes, and finally showed the details in his webbing and weblines. LEDGER’s performance of the joker surpasses hannibal, and even the confident creepiness supplied by the villain in SE7en, as well. If you are looking for a villain to personify, a villain, look no further. As a matter of fact, he eclipes, and outdoes every moment jack nicholson had as the joker, in many and every moment of the film. any expert of the original BATMAN movie will notice the homage to the original joker. plus, Ledger’s incredible mastery, and progression to the outer fringe of almost and probably never being bested ever. I am not sayin this just because of his death, i am literally saying that ledger should have not died. he is one of the best villains ever, close to even mitchum/deniro capefear villain infamy, EASILY..no joke.. i mean seriously no joke. it seemingly feels like LEDGER channels ever joker ever created from the whimsical rasta on the cartoon, THE BATMAN, all the way to every comix book joker, while also outdoin even the JOKer badness that killd’t robin all in one fell swoop. Not to mention, the childlike component of the arkum, hannibal lector, connection that batman has with the joker….when he needs to seek the joker as an insight into helping him fight crime. The my good buddy batman joker moment, is even intact in this role, and just the sheer depth supplied in this scene gives homage to every person who ever read a batman comix, that had the joker as a dominant character.

    Well, this socalled softness that existed in the comix was a killing component of the batman franchise…well, that was before Frank Miller, took to the batman franchise and created the darkknight storyline of lore. which by the way, over time was folded into batman’s continuity, but initially was offered as an alternative gateway reality to batman. Plus, was not integrated into the regular batman writings and runs. Similar to the godawful contribution people find so rewarding as the ULTIMATE XMEN parrallel universe. y’know the one, that sells high but is complete utter crap, and one reason i stopped reading comix all together. I included that to say, that hey, marvel has done its bad deeds, and over time. I just became an old defunct collector so small childlike issues of marvel vs dc, fell to the wayside. yet, the idea and ideal still existed when coming across DC material that i could get a product that could be stifled creatively, because DC is owned by the WB[warner bros] conglomerate. Making it open for tampering when it came to source material, which would ultimately dilute the overrall impact of the original literary contribution. Meaning when i heard DC, was making a film adaptation of Frank Miller’s dark knight. my initial reaction was:

    yeah,..they will phuck this one up, ROYALLY.

    plus, i will be royally pissed, if the joel schumaker bubbly bumbling buffonery school of film making mantra was upheld. meaning, WB would take the name of this incredible masterpiece, and literary best seller in the graphic novel realm, plus completely omit the value of the original comix. for the sake of tryin to globalize this batman entry, and make a dollar. granted i love, money, but i find it distasteful to ruin literary classic if adapted to film for the sake of a dollar. meaning, that if LOTR, was adapted so masterfully, and had so much acclaim. then why doesn’t every other franchise patterned after literary classic uphold the same. when, it is virtual proof that accurrate adaptations to the source material, show a film will reap the rewards in the box office and credibility.

    with that said, this review which will be detailed because this film is highly important to the rest of movie making from adapted literary source material. I will tackle, the issues and list the differences this movie makes that should set, and fully solidify the industry standard, on comix book film making

    Plus, dually i also cringed, because barring SInCITY. plus the whole omission of the actor’s guild, and the pr on that movie. Plus, Miller’s blacklisting fiasco in robocop II. When they left most of his writing genius on the cutting/editing room floor. while also making him take the blame for its awful showing in the box office revenue wise. Plus, dually blackmailing him, till SINCITY. Couple that with MARVEL omitting his classic, and industry changing critically acclaimed, highly detailed, and regarded run, on the movie DAREDEVIL. In that awful movie, which is actually worth reviewing on DVD, if you get the directors’s cut by-the-way. i felt regardless of his[MILLER's] recent triumphs in film, and box office receipts. that DC would still find a way to omit his material, pacing , and depth from this film.

    WELL, I CAN SAY FINALLY IN A COMIX MOVIE.

    DC SHOULD BE PRAISED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DO SUCH A THING.

    which wins huge kudos from me, and supplies much needed hope as a flim goer, and comix book movie fanboy.

    LET’s just say if you haven’t seen this movie, and read the reviews, from positive to negative and are a former avid comix reader. plus know the legend

    of this adapted graphic novel best seller. You will be rewarded with a movie that captures the dark noir writing style, and detail that miller beautifully supplied. Nolan, is incredible as a director on this film. His, cinematography, links the original batman franchises, from the noir filled original offering, made by TIM BURTON. Plus, mixes and obliterates the lighthearted bullsh!t that schumaker used to kill the once mighty batman franchise. He even retreads key moments of comparison to the original burton film, in his movie. while also surpassing them, with a large assault rifle toting joker, and gadget riding batman, gun battle ride into action. in comparison to the gag, almost vomiting in my mouth reflex of Jack’s joker pullin out a large long barrell 357, to shoot down batman. which, then nolan also, surpass a second time, by appealing to the cult following of the original movie. by giving the fanboy, a what if, the joker didn’t plunge, segueway into the conclusion and climax.

    THE DARKKNIGHT, as a mechanism of film making also lengthens and gives credibility to staying to the source material of the comix. Which, also bolsters the entire genre of filmmaking, and gives hope to every fanboy alive. Especially disgruntled, and displeased fanboys, who left the realm of comix collecting. to look at every comix book movie entry with skeptism, initially. yes, there are a lot of fanboys out there, and honestly our commentary is what actually leads to movies being blockbuster draws in this genre. appease the fanboy, make a hundid million dollars…in a short time. after this movie, I have to say to every fanboy. “you should and will be happy to go into this movie and have all your prayers, FINALLY answered.”

    Plus, now you can simply diss any other movie that is of the fanboy persuasion. If it doesn’t keep to the literary detailed styling seen in the source material. The boxoffice receipts of this movie should keep every future franchise honest, in that respect and regard. In every possible minute detail. so for the people reading and hearing about the next ironman being the drunk legendary ironman of lore. there is hope, after this film it will stick exclusively to the source material originally supplied in the comix story arc. plus, live up to the true offering that have made that story arc, a classic.

    then hopefully we will get a DAREDEVIL story, written and directed by frank miller, and robert rodriguez, as well. to usher that character in to boxoffice lore as well.

    Now, back to DC, and the marvel inferiority complex. I will tie into why this movie is also the best comic book movie ever, and surpassed XMEN II, as the best comix book movie of all time as well. One, dark knight sticks completely to the source material. whereas the XMEN franchise experimented, and up until the godawful third installment, was close to making an incredible movie franchise, complete with compromised intelligent filmmaking and detail, to the source material.

    On, the third installment of XMEN, that franchise went in a new direction with an awful pop video director, in BRETT RATNER. i should call him SHATNER, instead of RATTNER. simply because he SHAT upon, and completely sucked all the life out of the literary/comix conversion of the XMEN, in one fell swoop as a franchise. plus, could have ultimately stifled all comix bood movies from being good films instead of fanboy pieces as well. in that regard, THE DARK KNIGHT, is actually a real THRILLER psycho movie. It, even features an old switcheroo plot change that outdoes hancock’s as well. In XMEN III, rattner, omitted, the large wordbubble claremont style supplied in accuracy by XMEN’s original director who left for the superman franchise. which gets away from why comix book movies actually were a draw in the first place.

    The DARK KNIGHT, completely picks up in detail, and lineage, where XMEN III lost and sucked all the steam outta the comix book genre, and literary conversion. In this film nolan sticks to miller’s noir literary style and bolstered it for the film. whereas rattner, completely stifled the genre of comixbook movie making, by reeling in large receipts which justified, the compromising of comix book source material. After, the godawful XMEN III, movie. i became almost an eternal skeptic to comix movies once again, and feared the genre would be dead by other franchises looking to make a buck in the boxoffice. while giving us compromised gateway fan products which lacked the initially uumph, which made the franchise a draw as a comix to become a movie in the first place.

    let just say the darkknight’s box office receipts should eliminate comix movies from straying away from the source material.

    THANK THA LAWD,…HALLEJUAH!!!!

    with that said,..i welcome anyone to go see and enjoy: THE DARK KNIGHT

    this movie is completly moving, and does every component of comix book filmmaking justice from compromise, and attention to detail from the source material.

    you not only get an incredible joker, but you also finally get a BATMAN, who really is BATMAN for all intent and purposes in every possible way.. The batman, in the comix who is so confined, is able to spread his WINGS, so to speak in every way possible. While also,…taking a note from the compromise of spiderman’s, movie franchise component of the natural webshooters. This component is played out expertly in batman’s relationships, and his gadgetry. This Batman, played excellently, by the lisped Bale. acts as a complete foil, and character to all the comix movie franchises. supplying a character that although listed as the main attraction doesn’t lose his steam, or uumph in the wake of the incredibe performances offered by everyone in this movie. People are raving about ledger, but the contributions of all the other actors are left out unjustly. the performances in this movie are incredible. From the lighting, the makeup [especially of harvey two face, and the performance is inspiring, and just a psychological journey as the joker's performance as well.] even gary oldman, as commissioner gordon, is riveting, and makes me want to see him play:

    SOLID SNAKE, in a metal gear movie..yes, you heard it here first.

    GARY OLDMAN = solid snake, young and old

    konami,..make it happen.

    but anyway,…i didn’t want to give away any spoilers for people who haven’t seen the movie, in my review. As, i am also…trying to make ground and work on reviews that tackle the gateway, to issues that create skeptism in an educated fan. without, giving away the premise or any of the detail for someone who hasn’t seen this film. for details and discussions i will take to the message boards, or when the forums.sohh.com, are back and running i will tackle the discussion there.

    so till then, movie goers and fans…

    signin out, and most importantly…GO SEE:

    THE DARK KNIGHT

    ART BARR


  14. i didn’t watch sex and the city because it aint my type of film i guess you’d have done well to steer clear of this type of film in future!!!I really liked the Dark Knight i felt it did cut short some scenes somewhat as forementioned. Then slowed off strangely about 80 mins in! although I can’t see what warrented a whole negative novel on it!

    Its just a superhero movie you know the kinda plot its fast paced, loose, far fetched etc etc. I dont get what you were hoping to get from it? i felt it was alot less far fetched than any other superhero film that i have ever seen, It was Dark eerie and the Batmobile rocks – in tank form especially. Ledger was un-nerving as he was formidable and equally threatening. The set was dark and “looming” the action was loud and fast without being over the top! all you could want from a film of this genre. The real bonus being that beneath it all was a terrorising observation of how mass hysteria and mayhem could be created, works and executed. With batman stuck between moral dilemmas it worked and suprised people on that basis making it so well recieved (with the odd exception of course). Also i think its the contrast between the imaginary and the very real moral and human phsychological issues that make people warm to it so much.


  15. Seriously dude, it’s just a movie. Say it with me. It’s easy to pick apart any film even one as great as the godfather. Every movie is flawed, get over yourself. You seriously just wrote an entire novel on why you didn’t like the movie. I stopped reading about half way through because you were just repeating yourself. You need to get over yourself man. I bet you really liked the movie but your on of those guys who likes to go against the trend just to be different. It was a great movie, your entitled to your opinion but honestly you just spent two weeks of your life writing about something you hated. Really? If you didn’t like the movie and thought it was too dark and wasn’t fun enough pop in batman and robin. It was colorful not dark and probably has a plot more up your alley.


  16. It?s easy to pick apart any film even one as great as the godfather. Every movie is flawed, get over yourself.

    Ok. Every movie is flawed. So what’s your point, because every movie is flawed, we can’t criticize any movies from now on? Or point out how some movies have significantly more flaws than others. Also, on the flipside it’s easy to focus on the positives of any movie, too even one as bad as Batman and Robin. Does that mean that since anyone can praise any movie we should also refrain from praising any movies? I don’t get your point. So what if any movie can be picked apart for flaws? Why does that mean I’m not supposed to pick apart this specific movie for ITS flaws? If people can praise it to the high heavens all day long, why can’t I respond and criticize it also?

    I can find the flaws in any company in the stock market. Should no one critique stocks in finance magazines? I can find flaws in any politician. Guess political punditry needs to be eliminated too! You really need to come with something better than that.

    honestly you just spent two weeks of your life writing about something you hated.

    Okay, I guess it didn’t come across clearly in the written form, but I didn’t actually spend two whole weeks writing this. That was supposed to be blatant hyperbole.


  17. you know you spent a lot time writting a lot of hate towards a movie that has actually tried to make the average comic movie something that can follow the source material and actual characters and make it work.

    you have so many damn comic movies out there that ignore everything there is about the characters soul that i almost lost faith in these movies in general. i too could write a novel like blurb on how much xmen didnt pay attention to the source material and ignored it’s characters, i can say the same about every single super hero movie except for The Dark Knight.

    the problem with your arguement is that you are complaining about tiny things that if you knew what you were talking about wouldnt matter at all. for example, you mention how come joker can not have permawhite skin, why does he have to look so evil and not like just a happy clown like in the comics to that i say have you even picked up and of the graphic novels like hush, the killing joke, the long halloween? what are you talking about??? NEVER has the joker seemed like an harmless clown that kids whould approach. yeah they changed his look but, he was never this happy looking clown to begin with.

    what did they do right? they captured who the joker really is in the comics, insane, witty, very intellegent, an anchor of chaos. read the comics my friend. they stayed very true to the jokers sadisic, unsympathitic nature.

    same goes for all the other characters in the dark knight.

    if anything this movie is a testament as to what a movie can be if stay true to the source materials character.

    NOW if you don’t like that, then fine, if you enjoy the more campy, fun, batman, then ok. thats your opinion. but dont go on and on how lame a movie is and how they totatly ignored what batman is if you yourself have ignored over two decades of the darker batman graphic novels.

    nolan knew what he was doing, and this movie was great, and i’m glad it did so well, because now we can maybe finally see more comic movies actually staying true to the actual characters and not dolling them up so they can no offend someone, or please kids or what not.

    stick with your batman and robin’s and fantastic 4 films then.

    and one more thing.

    your little piece on spiderman 2…how you said you ignore that plot holes in that film because raimi wasnt trying to make a film realisic or based on reality, well raimi himself said in his first interviews for spiderman that he intended spiderman to be a bit more based on reality, thats why he got rid of the web shootters the crazy but way better original green goblin suit and chose that lame soilder suit. so where does your logic go there?

    bottom line, this movie stayed very true to the nature of what is batman like the grahpic novels themselves, the action and everything isnt all fantastic and what not. and like i said if you like that then fine, clearly shows why you liked spiderman and ignored it’s flaws. just dont jodge another movie for being different.


  18. you know you spent a lot time writting a lot of hate towards a movie that has actually tried to make the average comic movie something that can follow the source material and actual characters and make it work.

    How does this movie follow the source material? Joker’s origin is different, 2 Face’s origin is different, how Gordon became Commissioner is different, Joker’s look is different, Batman’s look is different, he can fly/glide, his fight style is different (that is, more “realistic”), the portrayal of Gotham City is different, Joker’s origin being tied into a fight with Batman and falling into a vat of chemicals is different, there’s an invented love interest, no Batcave, Joker is portrayed more as an ideological terrorist than the heist guy he is in the comics…this strays from the source material a LOT. I personally don’t care if it steers away from a lot of the specifics of the source material as long as it captures the overall tone, and this movie didn’t do that for me. But don’t pretend this is close to the source material. It’s not.

    the problem with your arguement is that you are complaining about tiny things that if you knew what you were talking about wouldnt matter at all. for example, you mention how come joker can not have permawhite skin, why does he have to look so evil and not like just a happy clown like in the comics to that i say have you even picked up and of the graphic novels like hush, the killing joke, the long halloween? what are you talking about??? NEVER has the joker seemed like an harmless clown that kids whould approach. yeah they changed his look but, he was never this happy looking clown to begin with.

    The way Cesar Romero looked in the Batman TV show is pretty much how the Joker looked in over 40 years of Batman comics. In Batman The Animated Series he looked like a clown kids would approach too. Unlike most modern comic fans, I don’t act like Batman came into existence with the writings of British writers in the 80s. Joker existed before Alan Moore’s Killing Joke and before Morrison’s Arkham Asylum. I personally think Killing Joke is horribly overrated and pretentious and Arkham Asylum is the same. And Hush and Long Halloween? Both by Jeph Loeb, so they fall under “automatic crap” category. No such thing as a good Jeph Loeb book. Long Halloween is just the best parts of Godfather 1 and 2, Presumed Innocent, Silence of the Lambs and classic Batman stories, except with bad dialogue and stupid plot holes thrown in and a mystery that makes NO sense. Perfect example of everything wrong with modern Batman books.


  19. go read the dark noir ABSTRACT source material, THE DARK KNIGHT. penned and penciled by the legend, FRANK MILLER. See, what his aim and scope was that helped to usher realism into comix, and make them evolve, and stand in the context of time. then go tackle, the rest of miller?s classics including the runs on sincity, and most importantly daredevil. get educated on what you are missing, because you are missing a lot.

    I’ve read every single one of those things you mention. What does Frank Miller have to do with Nolan? Frank Miller’s Dark Knight? You mean the series that has a wacked out cyberpunk vision of the future, complete with monstrous mutants that spoke in a wacked out special slang, 8 foot tall Amazon musclebound shirtless women villains with swastika boobs, ridiculously fun scenes like Batman wearing an old lady disguise over his costume, a fat assistant to the Joker called Milkbaby that smelled like milk, cranky dolls that talked smack and self-destructed, a knockdown fight with Superman where Batman wears a giant, kryptonite powered robot armor, laugh out loud trash-talking speeches by Batman to crooks that were incredibly awesome and over the top, a Joker that actually has white skin and not facepaint…basically a graphic novel that unlike Christopher Nolan’s approach is TOTALLY WILLING TO EMBRACE A LACK OF REALISM AND THE OVER THE TOP RIDICULOUS NATURE OF SUPERHERO COMICS?! THAT is the book you want to use to prove your point about why Dark Knight is so good? The book is the total opposite in approach from Dark Knight the movie. Sure it has grim overtones, but it is bombastic, fun and totally embraces the craziness of superheroics and fantasy rather than trying to be a cop film meets Silence of the lamb meets snuff film while having the bare minimum of superheroics needed to call the movie a Batman movie.

    If Chris Nolan was willing to put in half the outrageous craziness Frank Miller puts into his Batman comics like Dark Knight, Dark KNight Strikes Again or All Star Batman and Robin, I’d have LOVED this movie. Using Frank Miller hurts your case, it doesn’t help it.


  20. well, if you read all of that source material, and didn’t find anything rewarding in this film and triumph in cinema..then you are one of those people who is hard to please. honestly though, i think you are just listing the material from wikipedia. seriously, because if you were around when the dark knight was initially released as well, as other miller departure from the norm in staple books. you would have noticed that this film lived up to that departure from the norm, and also upheld all the previous moments in batman’s history and lineage, excellently. your opinion on the joker, and the events, plus downplaying his scattergorical genius is a very big indicator. you are one of those people faking to have read, and also were not initially around to comment on tone of the material you said you read. i mean seriously, your review goes into places, this movie initially tackled and upheld in the first batman begins, and then translated that same fervor into the sequel and magnified it. i think you are just a toy poser, when it comes to actually reading any comix.

    as a matter of fact, please list your favorites comix, and their creators, and i don’t mean graphic novels. i mean you were there to get them every wednesday, or thursday. plus had a stack waiting for you to not miss the first printing. please list your favorite creators, and why. i honestly think you are making things up as you go, and just tryin to save face, in the wake of looking like you don’t understand or comprehend what you are talkin about.

    art barr


  21. plus, and most importantly you did not read my entire offering. which also makes me think you just skimmed to below my posted username, and thought that was the wrap up to my rant. i read your entire rant, re-read mine, and my review then answer back.

    by not doin so, you definately cosign you don’t pay attention to detail as your intial review shows in plain english. if you know so much about comix, why just harp on my dark knight frank miller comment, and not the entire bulk of what i discussed. including the review, which i put there to give you some insight to a topic you honestly and consistently prove you know nothing and were never really apart of. anyone, can go get a few reveiws from the back inset of the frank miller books. you let me know you definately didn’t read the comix because in a round about way you try to bash those works as well. it signals to me, you are just tryin to falsely claim something you didn’t really experience, as well.

    art barr

    oh, like batman kickin superman’s a55 was a detractor. the most important arc in that comix, is superman’s failing relationship with wonderwoman. not the fight between, supes and batman.


  22. T.

    Great post and one i’ll be passing on to many of the spoon fed opinion, media sanctioned “films you should go see” loving sheeplike drones i call mates.
    Many points made (and some i hadn’t really noticed) are made with more applomb than i could muster but i feel there is still a glimmer of a slot through which to push my 10 pence/ 10 cents (depending on your state approved method of economic lubrication).

    And it is thus!

    Much has been made of Batmans moral triumph in not killing the Joker when given a perfect opportunity to do so but many, i feel, fail to grasp the true bat castrating tradgedy of the situation…..

    Your enemy is standing helpless and ineffectual in the middle of a road you are presently gunning down on an armed vehicle at a fairly high rate of knots…….. what does your heroic instinct tell you to do?

    Is it?

    A

    SLOW DOWN

    PULL OUT A WEAPON

    COME TO A CONTROLLED STOP BESIDE SAID ARCH ENEMY

    TWAT ABOUT HEAD UNTIL RENDERED UNCONCIOUS

    Or is IT!

    B

    Speed up.

    Scream like a girl

    Crash bike

    Faint

    If you answered B to the above question then you are in fact not a superhero but a dithering twat in a gimp suit who cant defend himself against DOGS, for gods sake, TWICE in the same movie.

    Batman- YOU FAIL.


  23. Dude. Seriously? Did you not watch the movie? First of all, the Joker had a machine gun so a controlled stop could have dire consequences not to mention the fact that the Joker is not going to just sit there and let himself be beat over the head. Secondly, it was a plan by Gordon and Batman to catch the Joker. He didn’t faint, he pretended to faint. You, sharethecake, are the weakest link. Good-bye.


  24. Dude. Seriously? Did you not watch the movie? First of all, the Joker had a machine gun so a controlled stop could have dire consequences not to mention the fact that the Joker is not going to just sit there and let himself be beat over the head. Secondly, it was a plan by Gordon and Batman to catch the Joker. He didn?t faint, he pretended to faint. You, sharethecake, are the weakest link. Good-bye.

    Batman did not pretend. He was knocked out. Gordon even tells his son later that he actually saved Batman’s life. Sharethecake is right, sorry.

    And it also leads to another criticism of the movie…if it was part of the plan by Gordon and Batman for Batman to pretend to fake, how on earth could they plan that so perfectly? “Okay Gordon, you ride in the truck in disguise with Dent, then we wait for Joker to kill a few innocent people and attack us with an RPG and destroy tons of property while I remain nowhere in site for ten or so minutes while the carnage ensues and innocents are at risk. Then I show up after so many people have been shot at and almost killed just to crash my car beyond repair. You get the paddywagon stalled out on the corner of Kane and Finger while I show up with my Batcycle and turn the truck over, but then I’m going to crash it and end up right at Joker’s feet and pretend to faint. THEN you get the drop on him.”

    I think it even gets DUMBER for Batman if you try to use the excuse that it was a plan all along.


  25. most importantly you did not read my entire offering. which also makes me think you just skimmed to below my posted username, and thought that was the wrap up to my rant. i read your entire rant, re-read mine, and my review then answer back.

    Art Barr, I didn’t respond to every single point in your post because honestly, I didn’t care to. I made my points, you made your responses, I felt that was enough for the most part. It’s my blog, I respond to the points I want to and don’t respond to the points I don’t want to. Most of the stuff you wrote was your opinion versus my opinion, which is fine. I let you give your opposing viewpoint. But you can’t come on my blog and start demanding I give you point by point responses to everything you write. Get your own blog and bark orders over there, okay? The only thing you posted that I felt I wanted to respond to was your claim that I read no Frank Miller books. I read them all, and gave you a laundry list of specific reasons why Miller’s Batman work is very different than the spirit of Nolan’s interpretation, and what do you say?

    honestly though, i think you are just listing the material from wikipedia…as a matter of fact, please list your favorites comix, and their creators, and i don?t mean graphic novels. i mean you were there to get them every wednesday, or thursday. plus had a stack waiting for you to not miss the first printing. please list your favorite creators, and why. i honestly think you are making things up as you go, and just tryin to save face, in the wake of looking like you don?t understand or comprehend what you are talkin about.

    dude, why the hell should i care if you, Art Barr, specifically believe me about being a comic fan? and also, why would i even bother to lie about such a thing? it’s not like being a comic book fan is going to impress people or get me chicks. i gave you a point by point description of Dark Knight Returns and you just accuse me of getting it off wikipedia. So what, now I’m supposed to give you a laundry list of creators and titles I like because you, Art Barr, don’t believe me? Who are you? And why bother? You’ll just claim I got it the names off of DC or Marvel or Diamond’s website or something. because obviously in your world no one can possibly like comic books and still dislike this movie. It’s simply impossible. So fine. Think what you want to think, believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect to come to my blog demanding I give you point by point responses to your comments or demand that I jump through hoops to prove things about myself to you. Just doesn’t work like that here.


  26. Sorry, Ricky Raw, but you are wrong here. If it wasn’t a plan, then why would Gordon be disguised in the truck at all? Also, just so you know, part of a plan could involve saving someone’s life. *sigh* But here you go back to your “not 100% real” criticism again. Is it so far fetched (even in a fictional story) that there could have been a plan to transport Dent with Batman as back-up (the kind of back-up where only him and Gordon know) and Gordon disguised on the truck as even more back-up and that they were expecting Joker to attack at some point but they weren’t exactly sure so Batman remained behind the scenes until the Joker attacked and then joined the fight against him? If you can’t, I pity you. Also the plan clearly wasn’t perfect as it provided the Joker to carry out his plan of having the bomb in the police station and killing Rachel as a punishment for Batman for being “selfish” and saving her despite Gotham’s need for Dent.


  27. ….. Batman PRETENDED to faint in order to allow Gordon to bag the Joker? Please.
    This is of course not true- he did in fact faint like a giant girl (im beginning to think that bat cycle should have been pink and had stablizers), but your missing my point- He’s meant to be BATMAN i.e A totally brickshithouse, baddy arse kicking, gigantaspartan hardcase. He SHOULD have shrugged off a few bullets from a machine gun like it was a water pistol, parked the bike, strode up to Mr smiley and KNOCKED HIS FUCKING TEETH IN. Keep him alive, yes, it keeps the plot moving, but where does it say he cant kick him about a bit before sticking him in jail?
    Would the brothers Nolan PLEASE stop turning my once favourite of Superhero’s (because this DOES come from the fact that something i like so much is being screwed with in such a horrible way) into something totally ineffective. In fact why dont you take the ears off the suit and call the next film “Totally non bat related crime fighting vigelante man”……….. or “The Punisher” for short……….


  28. Wrong. Do you have any reason why you think that he really fainted? Nope, but I can’t wait to see what you come up with. Why SHOULD he have done that? It would have been stupid and overly unrealistic if his new armor that made him more vulnerable to bullets was able to take point blank machine gun fire. Also, if you remember, he beat Joker’s ass in the interrogation room. So how exactly is he totally ineffective? The fact that the themes in the movie are deeper than past Batman movies mean that him being effective can mean more than just beating up on the Joker, him being effective means that people won’t succumb to the whims of the Joker just so that he can prove his theories about human nature.


  29. hey t,…Ricky Raw,

    why don’t you come off, of it.

    seriously, you are skimming, and it is completely obvious.
    first and case in point in your original review, you mention and hark back to the original batman tv show, and the image of the joker. plus mention, that image as being this fun loving character. when as early as the mid 90′s and the death of robin, the handicapping of oracle, and the frank miller alternative reality batman, and batman year one. this franchise, and this series joker is based on, directionwise. you fail to mention, any of that initially in your original review. you don’t mention, that relevence once. then, act like you were completely unaware of the joker and his character traits globally as a character. plus, you also retreaded that, the joker never did this or that. when if you read any frank miller graphic novels or any batman titles, like you claim to have. material, which has been available for close to fifteen years almost. since the mid nineties, for shezus christsake. then when i confronted you on, having any knowledge of the source material used for this batman franchise. you act like this expert, all of a sudden. when your initial review didn’t include any of this knowledge of the source material. plus, i posted my review which chronicles, that psychology and character development, and the reason why this batman is more gritty. Except in the case of DC, it still retains the softness, of DC characters.
    honestly, if you previously knew of the source material you should have listed that. plus, your disapproval of the direction the joker character had taken, at that point. you did not do that. simply, because you couldn’t have done that because the joker has always been a psycho character. not some fun loving jokester. even on the batman character in two incarnations, the joker never even acts that way. that is why i questioned your knowledge. honestly i still feel you don’t know any of the material whatsoever, at all. as a matter of fact, this source material is so profound, that even todd mcfarlane in the spawn/batman crossover, found away to stylistically include tidbits from the frankmiller darkknight series. just as a cosign of its legendary direction, for the character, batman just for beginners. honestly, i feel you are full of crap, like your review and not familiar with the source material at all..you should just say that you weren’t familiar with the character and that is you shortcoming when reviewing this new batman franchise. which initially was relaunched to follow batman: year one, and the darkknight franchises in tone and premise since they first pr’d the re-release of the franchise to film, after they destroyed the first franchise appeasing clowns like you, with the direction of joel schumaker.

    so please spare me with your posturing and just man up. stop tryin to act like you are so on the ball. that you can not be read like the graphic novels, and comic character evolutions, you did NOT read. nor, not even once go about tryin to correlate the magnitude of those storyarcs, and characters.

    Art Barr

    be real, homie….cause you are not real…

    you just want something to complain about because you probably feel left outta the loop. cool, go to your neighbothood bookstore, and pick up the graphic novels. lawd knows, you don’t care enough to actually plop down the money to have the first printings, of the original comix. let alone, the resources, or savy to actually track them down, and purchase them either. just you absence, of knowing anything about the evolution of batman, and the characters, in his universe signify that.

    stop skim’n,..and pic’n. you can’t fully appreciate a thing, till you sit through it in full as well.


  30. Beating up an unarmed man in a locked room does not make you an effective hero my friend, it makes you a bullying dick. End of.
    Im talking about pitting your wits and pugilistic chops up against a worthy enemey and coming out bruised and battered, yes, but victorious.
    I think back to the action in this film and all i can recall are a few murky, overly tight shots of interchangeable uniformed stuntmen getting punched then thrown to the floor. Christ, even Tim Burton (an unapologetically stylecentric, wildhaired art school type) shot fight scenes in the first two that i still remember to this day, and i cant remember the last time i watched either of them.
    At the end of the day its just a matter of opinion, and i get the feeling Phil that (to your credit) your the type of man who’ll stand by a conviction until your dial beams azure, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
    Its the first Hulk movie all over again- i loved that film to death and almost everyone else hated it. There’s just no understanding popular opinion some times…


  31. What gets me is that batman is being treated like a complex true to life thriller, its a fictional piece of work in every way it was bound to be choppy and have its faults. It has been made darker but accessable!! its just fun, Most of you guys are far to intellectual to be taking this so seriously you just cant over anylyse it. it wasnt made to be studied as a piece of art. if you dont like it then i wouldnt bother watching a comic book film in future you are far to cynical for such genres. try non fiction maybe or porn? hey its worth a try it might just be the only thing to satisfy you ;)


  32. Art Barr, get it into your head: I don’t care if you believe I am a “true” comic fan or not. I’m not going to waste time trying to prove it to you. All the proof I’ve given, you’ve accused me of getting by skimming or looking on wikipedia. So fuck it, believe what you want..

    Paul:

    What gets me is that batman is being treated like a complex true to life thriller, its a fictional piece of work in every way it was bound to be choppy and have its faults. It has been made darker but accessable!! its just fun, Most of you guys are far to intellectual to be taking this so seriously you just cant over anylyse it. it wasnt made to be studied as a piece of art. if you dont like it then i wouldnt bother watching a comic book film in future you are far to cynical for such genres. try non fiction maybe or porn? hey its worth a try it might just be the only thing to satisfy you

    Paul, I agree with everything you said here about how stupid it is to take Batman so seriously. Problem is, instead of addressing it to me, address it to Chris Nolan. I’m not the one treating Batman as a complex true-to-life thriller, Chris Nolan is. It is not “just fun,” it’s anything BUT fun, it’s ugly, depressing and cynical. Chris Nolan is the one that’s far too intellectual and taking the subject matter too seriously, I am just analyzing the movie by THE STANDARDS OF WHAT NOLAN OBVIOUSLY SET OUT TO DO. You don’t judge Sophie’s CHoice by the standards of Zoolander, you don’t judge Zoolander by the standards of Sophie’s Choice. You judge a movie by the standards of what the creators intended to create. I don’t judge movies like Kill Bill, Burton’s Batman and Raimi’s Spider-Man by these high standards because they are the ones actually trying to create movies that are not intellectual, that are “just fun,” that are not meant to be overanalyzed, etc. Nolan, on the other hand, with this pseudointellectual, bloated pretentious mess had a reach that exceeded his grasp.

    This is the big problem with Dark Knight fans, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Everything fun, boisterous, larger than life and outlandish has been removed from Batman and all these lofty themes and allegories and manifestoes and enough squeamish violence to make parents think twice about bringing kids to see the movie are all over the film. So you can’t turn around and now claim that this film is just a kid’s movie, just fun, not meant to be taken seriously or judged by an adult standard when they’ve made every effort to make this a serious, adult, deep movie that is not friendly to kids.


  33. as someone who enjoyed the movie as a visual narcotic designed to lull me into a welcome stupor, i give you props for this beautiful evisceration. perhaps the batman as envisioned by nolan is the culmination of an artistic trend that society (the West) claims to love because it validates our total embrace of nihilism?

    meh, i had more fun watching superman 2. zod was cool.

    First there?s the comic fanboy hysteria that feels the more serious the source material is taken, the better the movie automatically is because it helps them achieve personal validation for the fact that they are reading it well into their 20s and 30s.

    this made me lo… but not l. i’m in public.

    roissys last blog post..Universal Truths Day


  34. Go watch Batman and Robin for less realism. Sounds like you hated it because you wanted to. And that’s fine. I just feel sorry that you couldn’t enjoy an obviously awesome movie.


  35. I didn’t say that Batman was effective because he, while unarmed, beat up an unarmed man in a room that he locked. I said that he was effective because he managed to get the people of Gotham to not give in to the Joker. I’m not even sure what the point of you making that statement was, but regardless we can agree to disagree. I actually liked the Eric Bana Hulk too and I often get ridiculed for that by my friends who all claim that it sucks.


  36. Sorry mate, i just was saying that you would argue til you were blue in the face, which is why we are having this discussion- a bit of banter.
    I find it heartening that you found the original Hulk to be a good film becuase i kind of use that particular film as a barometer upon which to gauge a persons filmic aesthetic stance. Although it will never happen i wouldn’t mind seeing his take (Ang Lee) on the Bat lore…… No doubt everyone would die in a Greek tradgedy type stramash of death and betrayal….. wait a minute……
    Anyroad.
    All plot holes, bad direction and scripting aside the general thrust (and takings) of the film can only lead to a more adult, darker and better depiction of the Bat lore in general come the next installment.
    What about a Tarantino effort?…………Hmm maybe not eh?


  37. Hey, you’re entirely entitled to your opinion. I’m not about to flame someone who’s opinion on a movie differs from mine, hell I don’t even flame people with different opinions on human rights issues. Still, I do wonder about some of your points. I loved the action, and I wish more movies would shoot their action sequences more brutally real like this instead of less so. Not that the fights weren’t well outside the realm of humanly possible, but that most fights are over as quick as they start, and while not particularly spectacular are horrifying to behold. I’m also not saying that every movie should use this exact format either, but for this movie it worked. My biggest fear is all the imitators to come. People who think that because it worked for Batman, it’ll work for the new re-imagining of H.R. Puff ‘N Stuff.


  38. go watch george clooney’s batman movies, then, if you want unrealistic, silly action. i remember a shitscene where he and robin fight arnie’s goons on ICE SKATES, and do pirouettes, and another scene where uma thurman sexily pops out of a huge furry gorilla costume to a dance number while stepping on a bunch of prone men to show how *seductive* she is. i’m sure thats the kind of quality filmmaking that keeps u gleefully clapping and squealing with your mouth full of popcorn, you tasteless lil rascal you.


  39. T. I do understand what you are saying to a certain extent nolan covered alot of different fronts in the film moral, emotional etc that coupled with everything else there was alot going on and there was maybe to many things to take in making the film feel forced and stretched at times? but it didnt get confusing which kept people watching, i think you had a pretense and was dissapointed maybe?

    I think overall the joker part and darkness was what made the film and the batmobile was pretty awesome too. there were some good moral points and the chaos theory came accross well, it was more edgy than its predecessor which did come accross. I do understand why some might not have liked it though, some people can take the good points from a film and ignore the bad bits others just dislike bits and sway themselves completely…


  40. was i just me or has no-one mentioned bales batman voice was a bit stupid??? oh my god your turning me into a hater!!!! aaagghh


  41. I actually liked Bale’s voice. I thought that it was a nice touch that no previous Batman had done but makes sense in consideration of the fact that his Bruce Wayne persona is a different personality from his Batman persona.


  42. Paul – come over to the dark side, hahahaha! Honestly, I thought Bale’s Batman sounded like robot pedophile with laryngitis, which is a shame because his Bruce Wayne was so good. I didn’t bother bringing it up in the review though because it just seemed like too easy a target.


  43. Actually I think the best thing for Bale to have done would be to change his voice more when doing Bruce Wayne than when doing Batman. He can do his Bruce Wayne with a lighter, more foppish and pompous voice and then do his Batman in a slightly deeper and raspier menacing version of his real voice. He actually accomplished this already in American psycho, where he had one voice for when Patrick Bateman spoke out loud and another for Patrick Bateman’s internal monologues. If he just slightly exaggerated both he’d have the perfect voice for both characters.


  44. i dunno. i’ve been reading these posts with alot of interests because i loved the movie but i also respect T’s opinion when it comes to alot of things. So while I can appreciate his thoughts on the movie and might even agree with some of his criticisms, I STILL ENJOYED THE FUCKIN MOVIE!

    Basically what it comes down to is the fact that T didn’t like it for the reasons he outlined. And many of us loved it for the reasons we have or have yet to outline. The murkiness of the gordon-dent-joker gambit did not mitigate my enjoyment of that scene. Now if i thought hard enough i can problem come up with a plausible explanation for the ploy. But why? i got what i needed out of it. This isn’t a movie i’m going to meditate on for long after it ends.

    i just think its silly that everyone is getting worked up over someone else not sharing their opinion.


  45. Worked up?


  46. Well I finally saw the movie and my wife and I both thought it was crap. But it was such a mess of a movie that it was hard to put my finger on exactly WHY I thought it was crap. Thanks for clearing that up :) The only thing I would add is that I think I would have liked the movie better if I hadn’t been hearing from everyone for the past month how great it was – sometimes I feel like an alien. I see several of your critics say you are hard to please – personally I am constantly amazed by how low everyone else’s standards seem to be.


  47. Thank God, I’m not the only person in the world who hated Dark Knight! I’d been looking forward to it since Batman Begins, and from the moment it started I had this uncomfortable feeling that my expectations weren’t going to pan out. And I was right.

    I could find no redeeming feature for the film, not one. And I can’t work out why I’m still so annoyed, it is just a film. Perhaps I feel like someone stole the mythos of ‘the Bat’ and screwed around with it for no good reason.

    If I’d been told beforehand I’d be watching a toned down version of Saw where the bad guy is king, or if they’d called it ‘Joker’ I might have got the impression that it wasn’t a film about Batman at all. I was so steamed when I got home I posted a review on the UK Channel 4 website.

    I’m sure there wil be a third installment – given this catastrophe I’ll probably steer well clear.


  48. Thank you for this. I can see most comments don’t agree with your take on the film, but I do. I hated it. Plot holes and nastiness and you do nail the realism / lack of realism problem completely – “realistic” fighting (dreadfully shot by the director – the action scenes are awful, though most reviewers don’t note this), “unrealistic” plot devices and all-out holes elsewhere. There were at least three four points in the film, for example, where The Joker escapes, where we were not shown how it happened, Nolan simply cut from the suggestion of an escape to BANG! He is out. More than once did I find myself going “huh”?

    A load of nonsense, basically – and I was really looking forward to this :(


  49. Hi T – Long time, no read!
    (I don’t think you would have charged people up as much if you’d declared yourself Jesus – man, don’t get between people and their batman – !)

    If someone else already mentioned this I apologize, I read something like 30 of the 50 comments and had to take a breather from all of the…EMOTION you’ve incited…

    Robert Downey Jr agrees with ya:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26255675/

    my favorite little snippet:

    ?I’m like, ‘I get it. This is so high-brow and so f—ing smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie,’? the actor ranted before adding, ?You know what? F— DC comics. That’s all I have to say and that’s where I’m really coming from.?

    heatheradairs last blog post..Will women please learn to stop dating John Mayer….


  50. This seems to be a rant blog so I will jump on the unstoppable train. I too was annoyed when I left the cinema. It wasn’t until I read some posts above did I realise why.

    It is because *some* of us were robbed of the the real essence of Batman. I like a gullible idiot joined in to watch this movie at the cinema instead of 6 months down the track on a DVD.

    This one did it for me – NO MORE CINEMA!!!!!


  51. I loved The Dark Knight, and I’ve never enjoyed a comic book in my life. I’m just a hardcore film buff, and I’ll try to retort as best as I can (not point for point, just generally).

    It seems like any part of the movie that’s dark and serious is slammed by you, claiming the movie should be lighter and more fun. Then any part of the movie that relies on suspension of disbelief is slammed by you because it isn’t realistic enough.

    It is a movie, it’s a movie about Batman, it isn’t going to be able to fit every last thing in realistically. What it can do is start with something realistic, and build upon one realistic thing with something less realistic, and so on and so forth. One film that has been discussed in this way is Jurassic Park. I believe Spielberg said that if you can buy the premise (a mosquito sucking blood, encased in amber, getting the DNA out in present time, etc), then you can buy the unrealistic concept of dinosaurs existing in modern times.

    In my opinion, Nolan managed to build on realistic concepts (which are less specific than in Jurassic Park, it isn’t a premise but more of a tone throughout the movie) in order to make you believe in the things that are less realistic (such as a man who has half his face burned off not screaming in agonizing pain, or succumbing to horrible infection).

    Yes, it is a comic book movie, but I like to think it stands for something more. These movies about larger than life heroes make filmmakers able to tell stories about morality and present-day issues, but they can bring forth these ideas in stronger ways because the canvas they’re painting on is so large.

    What this whole argument boils down to is that my disbelief was suspended, and yours was not. But half the things you mentioned in the article seem to only bother you because you hated the rest of the movie. It doesn’t bother me that you hated a movie that I loved, it just bothers me that you seem to think your opinion is absolute.

    Perhaps you should’ve had an intelligent debate with a friend who loved the film, and presented your arguments back and forth before just writing down every last thing that came to mind about the film, and belittling what may be the most mainstream attempt at real art this decade.


  52. Wow, so instead of trying to enjoy the film for what it was you instead decided to pick it a part JUST because Nolan went a different rout by trying to make it more grounded in reality? Dont get me wrong, I am still one who thinks Burton’s 89 Batman is better than both of Nolan’s but that one made no qualms that it was a comic book film. I mean the sets, costumes, gadgets, etc all screamed COMIC BOOK which was cool. I also thought TDK was cool to because there was a new approach being taken with it and that is that it was trying to seem like it could happen and I think it did a good job.

    I will say though, after watching TDK, Batman Begins looks even more like a comic film then initally you would think, especially with a comic plot of “Stop the bad guy before he uses a military weapon to vaporize water and make people go crazy,” is as comic book as you can get.

    I will say that the fanboys do go to far, but you should look at it for what it is and not judge it based on the fact you are annoyed by the fanboys.


  53. It seems like any part of the movie that?s dark and serious is slammed by you, claiming the movie should be lighter and more fun. Then any part of the movie that relies on suspension of disbelief is slammed by you because it isn?t realistic enough.

    No, my problem is that the whole movie loses any sense of fun in the name of “realism.” Because of realism, we can’t have anything fantastic or fun or over the top, only dull, depressing stuff that’s supposedly grounded in real world physics and science. Yet when it’s time for ridiculous plotholes, THEN the creators and the fans want to suspend disbelief. So the basic message is, we’re going to use selective realism and suspension of disbelief. Anything unbelievable that can make this movie more fun, exciting and visually wonderful, we must take away and ground in realism. But the important stuff like ridiculous plot holes and gaps in logic? Yes, THAT’S the stuff we absolutely must suspend disbelief for.

    I have no problem with suspension of disbelief. I just want consistency. When you criticize this movie for taking away all the cool, larger than life elements of Batman, fans say it must be done because of the need for realism. If you agree to the rules of these fans and judge this movie by realism standards and point out the plot holes, these same fans now say “Hey, it’s only a comic book movie, why do you expect realism?”

    It is a movie, it?s a movie about Batman, it isn?t going to be able to fit every last thing in realistically. What it can do is start with something realistic, and build upon one realistic thing with something less realistic, and so on and so forth. One film that has been discussed in this way is Jurassic Park. I believe Spielberg said that if you can buy the premise (a mosquito sucking blood, encased in amber, getting the DNA out in present time, etc), then you can buy the unrealistic concept of dinosaurs existing in modern times.

    I’m not the one with a problem about demanding too much realism, Chris Nolan and the fans of this movie are. My whole point in this critique is that trying to adhere too strongly to realism is stupid because in the end a movie about a billionaire who dresses as a Bat to singlehandedly punch all crime in the face is always going to ridiculously unreal. Your example of Jurassic Park actually supports my point better than it supports Nolan’s. I can paraphrase it to apply to Dark Knight perfectly:

    “Dear Chris Nolan. It is a movie, it?s a movie about Batman, it isn?t going to be able to fit every last thing in realistically. What it can do is start with something realistic, and build upon one realistic thing with something less realistic, and so on and so forth. One film that has been discussed in this way is Jurassic Park. I believe Spielberg said that if you can buy the premise (a mosquito sucking blood, encased in amber, getting the DNA out in present time, etc), then you can buy the unrealistic concept of dinosaurs existing in modern times. Likewise, if you can buy a movie about a billionaire who travels the world to become a high-tech superninja master detective that trains with monks around the world and returns home to drive a minitank through the streets and punch all crime in the face all by his lonesome, then you can buy the unrealistic concept of a man with naturally white skin and green hair, ridiculously over the top bombastic fight scenes and a lot of the other more unrealistic aspects of the Batman mythos.

    Thank you for the Jurassic Park example, it supported my argument perfectly.

    What this whole argument boils down to is that my disbelief was suspended, and yours was not.

    No, what it boils down to is that your belief was selectively suspended. Anything that made this look too comic booky couldn’t work. But plot holes and illogical sequences and poor research? That’s okay. I can suspend disbelief with the best of them. I just don’t see the point of being unable to suspend disbelief when it’s something exciting and cool, but suddenly being okay with suspension of disbelief when it’s time to excuse plot holes and poorly thought out story developments. Either you want realism or you don’t.

    But half the things you mentioned in the article seem to only bother you because you hated the rest of the movie.

    I can ascribe motives too. For example, I can say you excuse half the things I mention in the article because you loved the rest of the movie. Either way, my motives or your motives don’t matter, it’s whether the content of my points make sense, and I think they do. It doesn’t matter what my mindset is when writing this article, what matters is the content of my argument.

    It doesn?t bother me that you hated a movie that I loved, it just bothers me that you seem to think your opinion is absolute.

    Oh come on. So if this was a pro-Dark Knight post that presented its opinion as absolute, you would have taken me to task as well? What bothers you is the presentation of my opinion as absolute? So all those sites relentlessly praising this movie have also gotten comments from you taking them to task for this faux pas of presenting their opinions as absolute? Get real now. Somehow I doubt that. I have a feeling that you only have a problem with “absolute opinions” (whatever that means) when they are anti-Dark Knight. And personally, I feel I just presented my opinion as exactly that: my opinion.

    Perhaps you should?ve had an intelligent debate with a friend who loved the film, and presented your arguments back and forth before just writing down every last thing that came to mind about the film, and belittling what may be the most mainstream attempt at real art this decade.

    Or perhaps…just perhaps…this is my blog, I choose what I want to write and I can put whatever the hell I want on it, like a post called “Why I hated The Dark Knight” complete with a laundry list of why I think it’s one of the most overrated movies I’ve ever seen. If people can post all over the internet about how this movie is the best movie since Citizen Kane, why can’t I do the same about why I don’t like the movie. Why must I be forced to discuss my dislike in private with a friend like some kind of intellectual fugitive? It’s funny how the people who keep telling me I take this movie too seriously make extreme suggestions like this, like I’m committing some major thought crime on par with disparaging Martin Luther King or defending NAMBLA.


  54. Wow, so instead of trying to enjoy the film for what it was you instead decided to pick it a part JUST because Nolan went a different rout by trying to make it more grounded in reality?

    No, just the opposite. I did try to enjoy the film for what it was, and it failed by its own standards I believe. For example, Spider-Man 2 was a movie that did not try to be realistic or totally grounded in reality. It had tongue in cheek elements throughout and played fast and loose with realism. Did that movie have tons of plot holes? Yes, but I applied the standards the filmmakers were going for and forgave them, because hard realism was obviously not what they were going for.

    Nolan’s Batman movies relentlessly try to be realistic. Batmobile can’t look to Batlike because that’s silly. Every piece of tech or costume change or new gizmo must be relentlessly explained by Morgan Freeman and Bruce Wayne so that it can seem more realistic and plausible. Fights must be dull and plodding so that they look more realistic. No crazy Batcave, just a dull, sterile room. Joker uses face paint and is not a genuine freak with white skin and green hair because that’s too unrealistic. And so on and so on. Obviously, I’m not the one with a problem with suspension of disbelief, it’s Nolan. He’s the one who has trouble suspending his disbelief as he feels the need to suck the outrageousness out of almost every aspect of the Batman mythos. Well, if he’s going to cut out all the fun parts in the name of realism, then I’m going to judge him on said realism, because that’s the tone he’s set from the outset, that’s what he was going for.

    So I’d argue that I actually judged the film EXACTLY by the standards of what it was going for.


  55. And I would argue that this is a case of nothing more than you not liking the direction the film took. I will say though, to make it seem as bad as you say, is a pretty tall order. I mean, how can $500 million worth of ticket sales be wrong? Or are you one of those oh so lovely types that pick things apart just because it is popular?


  56. Dark Knight was awful. It should not get an Academy Award. It should not be nominated for anything.

    In fact, the producers, writers and the director should be sent to jail for life. Their wives, partners, children and parents should be sold into slavery to the Taliban. Their bank accounts, real estate and all their money and property should be confiscated by the State of California. Furthermore all the people who made money investing in the film should pay it back tenfold. All the theaters that showed it should be burned to the ground and the ashes should be raked under the Earth.

    That’s how much I hated it. I hated it. I hate that I had to sit through it. Because I can’t check on everything. I can’t research every move I make. There’s no time. I trusted the Batman name. I’ve been seeing it all my life and I trusted it to purvey a certain amount of WIT. In this there was not a single glimmer of wit. Only sadism.

    I’m not surprised Heath Ledger died. It’s a crime against humanity, a serious crime, to even like this movie.


  57. Some good points here. The major problem of course is a ridiculous combination of guys in tights and clown costumes discussing would-be philosophical issues during brakes between (totally illogical and almost impossible to follow) action scenes.
    The hero is dull and impotent. The villain is a sad junkie whose ability to control half the police and bomb hospitals and boats is baffling (make no mistake, the joker IS a JUNKIE, attempts to add psychotic-philosophical depth to the character make little difference).
    As for the motivations of the characters, I could never understand them. Apparently everyone is facing some serious moral dilemma and at the same time trying to outwit each other. I only wish I could know what it’s all about. By the time the film reached its climax and batman was facing the somehow still alive man with holes in his head I couldn’t even bring myself to try and understand why he was trying to kill that kid, who he was angry at, or whether or not he had a good reason to be angry at anyone. And frankly I don’t want to find out.
    This is comic book film-making gone terribly wrong.


  58. Thank you! I hate this film as much as you do… but you have expended so much more effort than I am prepared to, on explaining your contempt. Maybe I’ll just give people your url when they ask me why I hate it. Hehe, it’s displaced The Passion of the Christ on my vitriolic criticism charts. That, at least, was laughable in (many) parts (all the parts that didn’t make me cross or intellectually nauseous).


  59. I was really disapointed with the film. Sadly, the emphasis on the philosophy and moralizing hurt this film, not to mention the disapointing ending which would pretty much KO any hope of a decent sequel.

    I just saw a movie with Woody Allen called “Love and Death.” In one scene, Woody Allen questioned the morality of assasinating Napoleon for the good of Europe. the point, He made it work.

    If this movie is going to deal with philisophical viewpoints, they should have hired Woody Allen to write the screen play.

    Sarcastic commen aside, (yes that was meant to be sarcasm.) This movie fell victim to the old problem. Great idea, great potential piss poor excecution. The writer should concider getting a job writing instruction manuals for products nobody buys instead of screen writing.

    I’m probably going to get Sh*t for this, but I think “Batman Forever” and “Batman and Robin” are far superior to the “Dark Knight.” God bless Joel Schumacher.


  60. Excellent Movie. You are probably just one of the 23 people that disliked this film. Not everyone can like it of course. Opinions vary. Numbers have meaning, and numbers show that most of the viewers enjoyed this movie.


  61. What a fantastic article and it sums up most of the things I disliked about this movie. Most people I know liked this movie very much but I do think it’s just because they’ve been told to like it and don’t want to stand out.
    I don’t hate this movie at all, but it’s getting way more credit than it should in my opinion. It’s probably above average but not by much.
    I’d also like to add that the pace of the movie in the middle was terribly slow in my opinion, being an action movie rather than a superhero movie, which is basically what it’s become, it’s really unacceptable.
    And for the reason for ranting on about this movie is because it’s getting way too much credit, if it hadn’t gotten all this hype I wouldn’t have cared less.
    And lastly I applaud you for the article and I’ll make sure to forward it to my friends.


  62. Oh yeah, I have to add one thing. The fight scenes were just awful as well. It seemed like he was standing by a assembly line and all the mobsters were just sliding into melee range while they all had guns. I wanted to see Batman do some wicked jumps and spins and rolling on the floor. As I said it was more of an action movie and as such it was actually pretty bad.


  63. you are right in the majority of what you’re saying but nevertheless the movie (mostly due to ledger’s performance) was very entertaining


  64. You may have some valid points, but let me lay down some counter points.

    The last couple of Batman movies were terrible specifically because they had lost all base with reality. They had become more comic like in their art, and they were fucking awful. If you go back to Tim Burton’s Batman, it was fairly grounded in reality. The Joker was closer to a comic book character than Ledger’s portrayal, but he was still just a demented mobster. His plot was fairly realistic too, he was hurting people with chemical weapons. People liked that. Move on in that serious and the plots got less and less realistic, as did the villains, and the movies got worse and worse. You say you hate Dark Knight, have you seen Batman & Robin?!!


  65. I think you made many good points in your post. Normally, I would not watch such a film, but I was indeed attracted to watch it because of the hype surrounding it and the glaring critic reviews.

    I was expecting a good action movie with a dark edge/feel to it. I enjoyed the movie “The Crow” which I rate a much better film. The fight scenes and action scenes were completely incomprehensible. The “machine gun type” editing during such scenes looked like it was done by MTV twenty-somethings who had overdosed on some bad Red-Bull mixed with No-Doze.

    The soundtrack was also poorly done and over done. In a nut shell, I hate action movies that take themselves too seriously. This is not Citizen Kane for God’s sake! It’s Batman.

    I felt terrible watching great actors like Bale, Ledger, and Eckhart being reduced to psycho-babble. Bale sounding like a bad Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry wannabe and carried on in a “make my day punk” voice for two and a half hours. And as much as I admire Ledger, I was not too impressed with what he came up with as far as the Joker persona, including the obnoxious and fake sounding voice/accent, ugly suit, and creepy washed-out make-up.

    Once again, I did not expect to see a Kurosawa, Bergman, or Kubrick film here. I wanted action and entertainment, and I feel I was badly let down in that regard. What I found was a complete train-wreck and disjointed-mess of a film, with pretentions of being in the category of such directors and world class cinema that I mentioned above.

    I very much liked Nolan’s previous work such as Memento and my only explanation of what happened here with Dark Knight, is that it was a brave and bold experiment in film-making, that just went horribly wrong for a myriad of reasons.


  66. The dark Knight felt more like a marvel movie then a DC movie

    What do all marvel movie and the dark knight have in common Too many ploy hole and made for EMO


  67. No, it felt like a modern DC comic. If it was like a Marvel movie it would have at least been good, and even if it was riddled with plot holes would not have taken itself too seriously. Also, Marvel movies only have emo heroes when the hero really has a tough life, either because they’re poor, disfigured or a monster. DC movies have pretty boys and millionaires like Superman and Batman moping around even though the world is at their fingertips. When a Marvel character is remotely as rich as Batman, for example Tony Stark in the Iron Man movie, he is nowhere near as emo and angsty. Let’s keep it real, Marvel is the shit. No need to hate on them.

    T. AKA Ricky Raws last blog post..My European Tip, Part 5: Amsterdam


  68. Do you just like being different or something? Or can you not enjoy a movie unless someone dies every three seconds. The reason everyone in the entire fucking world liked “The dark night” is because it had good writing, fucking great acting, and every bit was entertaining. I am a total pessimist and I hate the entire human race but for once they got it right and miserable pricks with way to much fucking time on their hands got it wrong.
    Reasons “Dark Night” kicked ass:
    1. Bat Man is the coolest super hero ever
    2. Joker is the coolest super villain ever
    3. Heath ledger delivered the best acting I have ever seen in my interring life. If you disagree just die
    4. It was the only time I have ever been in a movie theater and needed to pee but thought “Who cares if I wet myself I can?t miss any of this”

    Reasons “The Dark Night” was not the greatest movie ever
    1. it’s not “Pulp Fiction”
    2. Some of bat man’s dialog was sub par
    3. It wasn’t directed by Guillermo Del Toro.
    4. That part with the boats was bullshit. I would a pushed that button. Fuck the convicts they were stupid enough to get caught.

    See i liked the movie but yah it had some problems. fuck you get a life.


  69. I am a total pessimist and I hate the entire human race…

    Well then that explains why you would love such a pessimistic and misanthropic movie. You were the target audience apparently. It’s hard to picture any audience member better suited for this overrated tripe than a total pessimist that hates the entire human race.


  70. Most overrated movie ever. *Coughs* Heath Ledger.
    To me he was a great actor, but ”The Dark Knight”
    is being loved for The Joker, in fact the real
    name is ”The Joker!”

    ”Get a life?” What are they
    doing reading you then?

    It was really boring, I only liked Harvey Dent.


  71. Are you criticizing the fan base or the movie? By the way… you strike me as a George Clooney fan. Sorry this comment isn’t dreadfully long..


  72. NOOOO!!!!! YOU BEAT ME TO IT, WHITE VOID!!!!!!!!! YOU DIDN’T CONSIDER IF HE WAS VAL KILMER FAN TOO!


  73. More proof that the most zealous fans of this movie are also among the most brain-dead.


  74. OH MY GOD!!! SOMEONE GET THIS GUY A HUG! I think you are the type that is miserable in life and wants to take others down with you.
    Your arguments are horrible. Boo friggin hooooo the tumbler doesn’t have a Bat symbol :cry:
    Yes there are holes in the movie. Good job buddy. Let’s ignore that there is a lot going on and in making a movie, clips need to get cut. Especially when making a 2 hour and 36 min movie, that’s the way it goes. Most of your argument stem purley from semantic disagreements. Those can always be argued so SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!! I’ve seen the movie 19 times. This is my favorite movie of all time. Ya talk crap saying I don’t know what a good movie is or whatever, but IMDB agrees in it’s greatness so I believe you are the one without taste. My main MINOR problems with it are with some lines in the script. Batman, using the voice he did, should not have had such long sentances. Also when the guy on the boat says, “We’re still alive. That means they haven’t killed us yet either.” NO SH1T!!!! He should have said, “We’re still alive. That must mean they don’t want to kill us either.” Regardless, you need a life….or a girl….or maybe a boy…..
    Keep crying. I feel the more tears you dish out, the more dollars The Dark Knight will make.
    Please tell me you want to talk about this outside of this post. I’d love to point out every retarded point you made that shows lower level brain activity on your part. I just don’t feel like wasting time typing. I have a life.


  75. I thoroughly enjoyed your review.

    I also, however, enjoyed the movie. I left the theater exhausted and mostly satisfied. One viewing will be enough for me.

    “One viewing,” perhaps, is my secret! Were I to hand you a short essay and have you check it for spelling and grammar, but do so while falling down the stairs, I bet you’d miss quite a bit.

    Never did read the books. Sorry. And Brokeback Deadguy was, even if a bit blatant, a more effective villain than Jack Whatshisface or Caesaer Romano. (pecking order would be, brokeback, cezanne, THEN jack).


  76. Dude…

    …be glad you’re able to watch movies.

    if ya don’t like go make one yourself i say


  77. As a comic book/graphic novel movie it completely failed to capture the creativity that goes into batman, as a realistic vigilante action-thriller it works perfect, take the ears off batman and you could probably keep joker the same and you got a vigilantly movie with all of the batman stuff as a good marketing tool.

    I didn’t like this movie it wasn’t made well at all except for the glorious effects of the explosions and chase scenes this movie wasn’t made to good to many jump scenes, to much cliche romance, the fighting is hard to watch(what happen to still shots from a distance?) and batman and joker both sounded dumb. I honestly thought ledger was the worst joker and maybe even batman/bruce was maybe the worst though christian bales looks except the chin fit well for a young Bruce.

    the biggest thing I missed is how gotham looked.


  78. Great article. The hostility from the fanboys who can’t understand why on earth you may have not found this to be the BEST MOVIE EVER MADE astounds me.

    I’m a huge comic fan, have been for 20+ years, and this movie just didn’t do it for me either. Boring, over-long, self-important and dull…I never thought I’d say that about a comic book movie, of all things.


  79. If I understand it correctly, Gordon faked his own death (even though it?s edited to make it look like he got shot for real) to protect his family. Batman then decides to announce who he is but Dent takes his place. The Joker intercepts the Dent convoy but is himself intercepted by Batman. Carnage ensues including the destruction of large parts of the Gotham road system and various buildings and, seemingly by fortune, Batman, the Joker and, the driver of the convoy who is, of course, Gordon, reach a point at which the Joker is captured. Unfortunately for them that?s what he wanted all along.
    So: doesn?t make very little sense when you try and add it up from characters? POV. Why would Gordon legitimise such a ridiculous plan: there?s no guarantee it would work and he?s placing the lives of his men and Dent in very real jeopardy because he knows the Joker is coming for them. Batman may suffer from incredible pride but there?s no way he could have planned, forseen or even imagained such a successful scenario as him flipping the Joker?s truck, faking his defeat and Gordon?s reappearance because it all happened just metres away from his vehicle. The Joker needs Dent for phase 2 of this particular plan os his attempt at killing him is self serving. He needs to be caught AND he needs the guy with the phone in his stomach to make it with him otherwise he?s got no way to get Lao or the money. He surely should have walked into the station with his men a la Se7en!
    I put this to a friend and he suggested the whole ?agent of chaos? angle which doesn?t work for me because Dent, Gordon and Batman ren?t agents of chaos and that?s the force they?re fighting against. If the Joker had initiated this then, yes, I could agree. But this is their party which the Joker crashes.
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    This is a glaring example of why you don’t either get (and I mean understand what happened and made a limited guess). The Joker didn’t plan on getting captured but he did have it set up just in case. Dent, batman and Gordon were all working independently of each other, knowing the Joker would come after Dent. Batman didn’t know the Batmoblie would be blown up, Gordon didn’t know Batman would flip the truck. Dent didn’t know Gordon was alive and Neither did Batman.
    I’ve read this post several times and I’ve watched the movie four times. What you call plot holes are called Scene transitions. Do we need to know what happened after Batman saved Rachel from being thrown out the window? No more than we need to go back and see Belloc after Indiana Jones escapes from the Natives in the beginning of Raiders. it doesn’t advance the plot, you know what happened. The Joker threw her off the balcony as a distraction to make his escape.
    Batman isn’t able to do any thing technical, except hand Lucius the designs for the new suit he designed( you know those papers he handed him), reconstruct a fragmented bullet with his high tech equipment amongst the other technical things he did in the movie.
    So, you’re either just hating to hate or really simple minded.


  80. I agree, this reviewer is cleary a huge nerd with no life.


  81. I think there is something seriously wrong with this review or whatever you want to call it. it is said that you want to make batman fucking gay. I’m sorry but I think I would vomit if i saw that bright yellow bat symbol on the bat mobile. And it is apparent that you have never made a movie so what give you the right to judge something you probably have never done. Batman was never a superhero and it would be a shame for that to change now. it seems that you would like Adam West’s gay version of batman, and I’m pretty sure you can find them all at best buy. ( I would gladly give you the money to purchase them so you stop writing shitty reviews.) But most likely you are a over weight forty year old mamas boy trying to pay her rent. I recommend u get off your fat ass, find a job, and get a life. Oh and by the way I think they are writing you a batman comic called “COMING out of the bat cave”, and its got rubber nipples on the bat suit and I heard that rather than having a bat tank they are going to a custom make a 98 ford pink fiesta with the bat symbol.


  82. You say that the scene where Joker is looking for Harvey Dent during the fundraiser makes no sense. I was a bit confused at this as well, but my theory is that it is explained later in the film when Joker says “for a while I really thought you WERE Dent, the way you lunged after her…” If he felt that Batman really was Dent, then that would explain things.

    Plus, after their fall, Bruce tells Rachel that Harvey “is safe”. Weren’t the police on their way at that very moment? It wasn’t explained fully to the audience, but if Batman/Bruce knew that Harvey was safe, then we should probably trust that, even if my theory above isn’t correct.


  83. I read about half way through, until you yourself forgot what you were trying to prove with this huge waste of yours and my time. Get a life, tell your wife to smarten up and leave your bitter ass. That section where you went off about district attorney and what not was comical and revealing. You are a sad man in your lonely little world full of hate. Go find an abandoned house and die in it.


  84. :lol: So I got bored reading this. I enjoyed the movie.

    I feel sorry you wasted so much time dwelling on it. A sad life you live. I pity you.


  85. i have to say, for someone who hated the film so much, u spent an awful lot of time writing about it.
    seems kind of sad to hate something so much, that u would spend so much time bagging it.


  86. The comment about the bus is retarted, what says the other bus driver werent working for the Joker?
    I got to admit that plot hole where Batman saves Dawes is annoying.


  87. I agree, but not %100. I do hate how people are saying that this is the “real Joker”. Joker is not an anarchist, first off. He was once offered to be a Nazi and attacked the them who gave him the offer, all while shouting his love for America. And I’m guessing all who think he is an anarchist have never read the issues where he decides to seriously run for Commander-in-Chief. Not to mention the fanbase is an other reason I don’t love this movie. They all go on how Joker made so many plans, and I’m guessing they were all in the bathroom, or ignoring the actual movie only to say they loved it when Joker said “Do I look like a man with a plan?” His plan WAS the joke. All in all, I think Ledger did a better Carnage than Joker. I really don’t mind if they recast.


  88. Absolutely correct! I for one actually like the movie, but the heights to which it is being elevated is absolutely ridiculous! How can anyone give this 5 stars when they consider all the things said here?! In a way I wish the movie wasnt so successful, critically and at the box office, because then I could just like this movie in my own way. Now I’m torn between having to love the movie, because of the fanboys, and having to hate the movie, because I dont want to be associated with the fanboys. Also, in a strange way, I want to love the movie, I really want to think this is a 5-star movie, because that is what everyone would have me believe, and I’d feel much better if I understood why it was so great. But I dont.


  89. They may have been working for him, but how the hell do they time it right so the bus crashes through the wall at exactly the right moment. He could feasibly have done this, but remember they get delayed by the mobster in the bank. Also, the traffic is bumper-to-bumper when the bus comes out of the building. Are we meant to believe that he somehow escaped in a hefty bus in bumper-to-bumper traffic? Are we meant to believe that no one saw the bus come out on to the road and call the police, who would have gotten there ages before the Joker could have escaped in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Or are we meant to believe that everyone on that road was working for the Joker, and they had all perfectly timed it to be there at the right time? Per-lease!


  90. Whatever points you may have are lost in your inability to puncuate or capitalize properly. You just prove the point by a sloppy defense.


  91. I’d like to mention, as my first counterpoint, that Bruce Wayne was always tech savy in the movie. Honestly, this has no basis in your negative review in the movie. Nruce DESIGNED the new suit, FOX didn’t, Fox went through the changes on the suit so THE AUDIENCE would know what the designs were.

    In Batman The Animated Series he looked like a clown kids would approach too.

    Did you watch Batman: The Animated Series? He looked like a clown, yes, but he sure as hell wasn’t one anybody’d approach.

    No, my problem is that the whole movie loses any sense of fun in the name of ?realism.? Because of realism, we can?t have anything fantastic or fun or over the top, only dull, depressing stuff that?s supposedly grounded in real world physics and science. Yet when it?s time for ridiculous plotholes, THEN the creators and the fans want to suspend disbelief.

    The movie’s realistic, it’s not total realism. You mentioned BTAS earlier, as I quoted. Batman: The Animated Series was considered “realistic” by Bruce Timm and Co. now did that take away and fun or fantastic things from happening in the series?

    This movie is the same. It’s realistic, but at the same time does allow for a suspension of disbelief.

    parents think twice about bringing kids to see the movie are all over the film.

    It was rated PG-13. If they want their kids to watch a movie about Batman there are plenty all ages Batman movies. This one was never intended to be a movie for kids to see.

    I don?t act like Batman came into existence with the writings of British writers in the 80s. Joker existed before Alan Moore?s Killing Joke and before Morrison?s Arkham Asylum.

    You do act like Batman came into existence before Adam West and the comic book code of authority came into effect. Before then, Batman was a dark vigilante who killed people.

    No crazy Batcave, just a dull, sterile room.

    Because Wayne Manor was being worked on during the course of the movie. I think somebody’d notice Batman’s activity during construction, don’t you. The reason it was empty in Begins was because, he literally, just found the cave. He didn’t have time to find a dinosaur or a giant penny to put in it.

    Joker uses face paint and is not a genuine freak with white skin and green hair because that?s too unrealistic.

    It also didn’t fit this version of the character, who was supposed to be scary. Ceasar Romero or Jack Nicolson’s takes on the characters don’t scare me.

    Also, Marvel movies only have emo heroes when the hero really has a tough life, either because they?re poor, disfigured or a monster. DC movies have pretty boys and millionaires like Superman and Batman moping around even though the world is at their fingertips.

    I guess your parent’s getting shot and killed in front of you at a young age doesn’t qualify as having a tough life. I guess believe the woman you love being killed because of a man standing up against what you fought fore doesn’t count as well. I agree though, SUPERMAN shouldn’t be mopey, however I believe Batman should.
    —————————————-

    Well I’m done posting my counter points, they’re not going to change your opinion, which you’re entitled to, as well am I and the other (most) people who enjoyed the movie.

    I would like to turn your attention to the current BRAVE AND THE BOLD cartoon airing on Cartoon Network. It’s the fun, more campy Batman you seem to enjoy more.
    —————————————–


  92. what in the fuck is wrong with this guy ? he needs to kill him self ! well maybe not , he just needs to shut the fuck up !

    everything he wrote is just fucked , its blasphemy !


  93. OH MY GOD, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

    First of all, I can’t believe I even UNDERSTOOD half of what you wrote, you illiterate moron. LEARN HOW TO TYPE!

    This may come as a HUGE shock to you, being the total choade that you are, but Frank Miller NEVER wrote a graphic novel called “THE DARK KNIGHT”!

    The name of Frank Miller’s ground-breaking graphic novel is “THE DARK KNIGHT *RETURNS*”!!!

    If you really believe that Nolan’s loaf of butt-vomit is actually “BASED” on Frank Miller’s book – then it is abundantly clear that YOU never read ANYTHING by Frank Miller.

    “The Dark Knight Returns” is set almost 25 years into the future, after Bruce Wayne has RETIRED from being Batman. Gotham City has turned into a war zone of gangs, murderers and thieves and Bruce himself has become jaded, lazy and hollow. When he finally does put the mask back on (the “Returns” of the title), he becomes the grim, ultra-violent hero which was typical of Batman stories in the late ’80′s.

    Nolan’s film had NOTHING in common with either Frank Miller’s “Dark Knight Returns,” or Miller’s “Batman: Year One” (except for ONE scene where Gordon hands Batman a Joker playing card on the top of the GCPD bldg. That’s it!), and it has absolutely NOTHING in common to Alan Moore’s “The Killing Joke.”

    You, you chump, have clearly fallen for all the bullshittery that Warner Brothers and Nolan himself have pumped out for MONTHS before the film was released.

    Maybe you should know what you’re talking about before you start hammering away at your keyboard, illiteraly typing up comments about Sherlock Holmes and such. I happen to be one of the foremost EXPERTS on Sherlock Holmes in this room at this moment (meaning I’ve read every single one Conan Doyle’s books, and have seen every single episode of the Granada TV adaptaions with actor Jeremy Britt (the BEST adaptation of the Holmes stories EVER). I can assure you, you mental midget, that MANY film versions of Sherlock Holmes have included the Great Detective’s drug use in it’s presentation. Even Basil Rathbone’s very first film starring as Sherlock Holmes (he was FAMOUS for the role) ended with Holmes turning to Watson and saying, “Watson – the needle!” and then exited, followed closely by Watson with his medical bag. And in NONE of the Conan Doyle original stories is Watson ever killed or is Professor Moriarty EVER referred to a “crazy”.

    Again you clearly do not know what you are talking about. You have NEVER read a Sherlock Holmes story. You have NEVER seen a Sherlock Holkmes movie. (“Veggie Tales” adaptation do NOT count.) You have NEVER read a Frank Miller Graphic Novel.

    But – you HAVE seen a really, really BAD Batman movie. And it’s called “The Dark Knight.”

    Idiot.


  94. You are so obviously on crack.

    GET HELP.


  95. Don’t kid yourself “DarkOne” – there are MILLIONS of people who hated this film. Not just disliked, or that it was bad – but HATED it.

    The difference between us and you is that we don’t find it necessary to piss ourselves when people disagree with us. That and the overwhelming sense of denial you all seem to be in.

    The “Dark Knight” sucked. It sucked as a Movie. It sucked as an Action Movie. It sucked as a “Crime” Movie. It sucked as a Dramatic Movie. It sucked as an Adventure Movie. It sucked as a Fantasy Movie. It sucked as a Comic Book Movie. And it most definitely and above all sucked as a BATMAN Movie.

    The cinematography sucked (Flourescent lighting? Who told these dicks flourescent lights looked good on film?).

    The editing sucked (Was the Editor called out of the room a lot? Did they have Attention Deficit Disorder?).

    The Production Design sucked (Giant rolling metal turd. That sure speaks “Batmobile, doesn’t it?).

    The make-up sucked (The “cut” on Christian Bale’s arm? The cheesy prosthetic was AN INCH AND A HALF THICK! If that had been “real,” he would have to have his arm aputated for gangrene! And those stupid, cheesy “scar” prosthetics on poor Heath Ledger’s cheeks – HOOKED into his mouth, mind you – made it impossible to talk clearly without that weird tongue thing he kept doing!).

    The writing sucked (This pretty much speaks for itself. Lame-ass dialogue, plot-holes galore, endless continuity errors, ridiculously lame “capers” and a “love triangle” that is only believeable if you believe a billionare playboy and a ruggedly handsome lawyer both find a frumpy, frowing spinster attractive).

    The acting sucked (And that’s saying ALOT. Considering the caliber of performers in this Cast, it should have been MUCH better. Michael Caine sounded like Dick Van Dyke out of “Mary Poppins,” Morgan Freeman’s motivation for anything he said or did was NONEXISTENT, Gary Oldman just looked uncomfortable throughout, and CHRISTIAN BALE IS A FUCKING RETARD. “Corky” from “Life Goes On” is a better actor than this cheese-dick! Aaron Eckhart, on the other had, did a fine job, considering what he had to work with. Shame he doesn’t get much better roles).

    And above all – CHRISTOPHER NOLAN SUCKS.

    There. Learn to watch movies.


  96. Grate post. I agree with everything you said. This movie has more plot holes than a french cheese. Nothing makes sense. Here comes another big hole.
    Harvey dont shoot the joker in the head in the hospital scene, and believes all the dog-car stuff. WTF. The man has losed his girlfriend and his face is half melted, but he stills throwing his money…
    And all the sonar thing… it remainds me to the bat-computer of the 60s series.
    Cheers.


  97. I refused to watch “BATMAN FOR DUMMIES!”

    I ask these kids in the comic shops, “do you enjoy going to work, is it exciting, the most thrilling thing that happens everyday?” they look at me confused. Well you want realism, there it is! And I don’t want it in my Batman movies. I’ve enjoyed the first Batman enough to get over that “soldier of fortune” suit Bale wore, but now it’s getting to be regodamndiculous! Yes, the unimagitve young fanboys can’t stand it when they make fun of their “Golden Globe weiner” but have the audacity to make fun of the stuff that came before it.

    I’m glad that the francise is coming to a grinding halt, sad to see Health Ledger die so young, but f*#k the Dark Knight movie.


  98. Blasphemy? I thought the movie was to the Batman universe! :lol:


  99. LOL! Are you referring to BATMAN? CAPTAIN AMERICA team up by John Byrne? Greatness! :D


  100. i am heath ledger and i love pillz om nom nom nom


  101. Duse, whatever… I loved it, the best movie of the f*cking decade!!! :D


  102. This is a lot of writing without saying almost anything
    You yourself show how hypocritical you are yourself in this post
    First blasting the movie for being too “realistic” to then criticizing it for not being realistic enough
    What a fucking joke you are.


  103. While i will have to concede certain plot points to you (like the scene where joker was in the jail and no one bothered to remove his damned make-up), you bring up the argument that you don’t like seeing how he got all these “little toys”. If you think back to the first Batman movie (the michael keaton one, not Batman Begins) it starts out with Bruce Wayne already being batman. We never get to hear or even glimpse at the backstory to the mentality of bruce wayne until that failed comedic abortion called Batman Forever. You say that the fighting was bland, and that Nolan used select realism to make it so. If you can remember the movie moment when Morgan Freeman (GOD) told wayne that the seperation of the plates on his new suit would make him more vulnerable to gunfire. If you think about it, why would he dance around the room when the next shot could kill him? (please be aware, i know this is a very fanboy-ish answer). Nolan’s movies are meant to be the backstory of Batman, the visual form of Frank Miller’s graphic novels that brought out an entire sense of realism to the Batman atmosphere that was destroyed by the former casting mistakes of Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Alicia Silverstone, and Jim Carrey.


  104. Wow, just Wow.
    That was intense, much more intense than the film.
    I agree with everything you’ve just said. The way you explained yourself was truely epic.
    I think in the end, “The Dark Knight”, will become the polar opposite of “Blade Runner”.
    Where as “Blade Runner” was the most underated film of all time, that finally recieved the praise of masterpiece through decades of analysis.
    “The Dark Knight” will be the most overated film of all time that will finally recieve it’s just hate through many decades of analysis.
    The thing with films and all art, is in the end the truth will always prevail. It may take a few decades but, “The Dark Knight” will eventually out live it’s hype and the generations after us, will laugh at how the entire world was swindled by Nolan’s ego.


  105. Well said sir. In fact it shall be known by future generations as… “The Dark Shite”
    “Never in the field of human movie going have so many paid so much to see so little….”….. The words of Sir Winston Churchill after seeing the towering pile of bore that is The Dark Shite.


  106. Although I believe you are trying WAAAY to hard and looking WAAAY to deep into this movie, I agree with some of your points. I agree that in the movie you never feel like Batman ever wins, as well as some other points.

    But I do have a problem about your comments about the ending of the movie. Nobody ever said that Batman wouldn’t kill. At the end of movie, when Harvey is holding the kid hostage and about ready to kill him, Batman does just flat out murder Harvey in some kind of rage, as you are trying to imply that his character did. Batman did what he had to do to save the little boy’s life. Harvey was about ready to pull the trigger, and so Batman stepped in and did what he had to do to say the kid. If you have a choice of whether to save a child, or the pshyco who is about the kill the child, then I think the choice is pretty obvious of which one to save. Also, it’s not like Batman didn’t try to talk Harvey out of it, because he did. Then Batman saw that there was just no saving Harvey, so instead, he went and did the right thing and saved the boy which also happened to kill Harvey.

    Lots of other things I disagree on as well, but this was the biggest of them.


  107. EDIT: In my previous post I say that

    “Batman does just flat out murder Harvey in some kind of rage, as you are trying to imply that his character did.”

    I meant to say “DOES NOT” where I say “DOES”


  108. You said The Long Halloween was shit, therefore your opinion doesn’t mean shit. The way you talk about the Joker, it’s like he is supposed to be all happy and a likable villain. Joker IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A LIKABLE VILLAIN! This is a guy who gassed a kindergarten, who fed poisoned cotton candy to boy scouts, who was about to massacre dozens of orphaned babies. And you complain that Joker in TDK was too dark? HAHA you need to read more comics mate. And Nolan didn’t make Joker wear make up because it was “realistic” he chose to interpret him with make up for creative reasons. Whats scarier and more disturbing. An unfortunate soul who fell in a vat of chemicals which bleached his skin? Or a schizo, ex stick up guy with a hideously slashed face who DECIDES to wear make up to HIGHLIGHT his disfigurement?

    Oh and Ichi the Killer IS NOT THE REAL INSPIRATION FOR THE JOKER. You have got to be kidding me. The scar on his face isn’t called a “Japanese smile” it’s called a “Chelsea grin” or “Glasgow smile”. I’ve seen a few people with it where i’m from. You just seem to be stuck in your ways, you don’t want the films to deviate from the comics at all. That’s just narrow mindedness.


  109. It has NOTHING in common with The Killing Joke? Have you seen this film? Have you even read the book? The whole film is basically an adaptation of The Killing Joke and The Long Halloween you moron! The Joker was trying to tip Jim Gordon over the edge in TKJ, in this it is Harvey. That is what Joker is trying to prove, that when something bad happens ie. your fiance dies. Anyone, no matter how good or noble can go crazy. He basically says it. “When the chips are down” (when everything goes wrong) “these civilized people will eat each other” (these good people will go crazy). I suggest you re read The Killing Joke and re watch The Dark Knight. You haven’t got a clue.


  110. You said The Long Halloween was shit, therefore your opinion doesn?t mean shit

    Anything written by Jeph Loeb is shit, plain and simple. Sorry. Long Halloween was simply ripped off scenes from The Godfather, Silence of the Lambs, and Presumed Innocent, slapped together nonsensically and used poorly. Then he used a bunch of nonstop villain cameos as fanservice to distract from the weak plot. The “mystery” has almost NO CLUES, every clue is dedicated setting up red herrings the whole time with no effort of setting up clues that actually work out the true solution to the mystery. It’s riddled with plot holes like every Jeph Loeb work. Maybe you are easily pleased, but no such thing as a good Jeph Loeb story to a thinking fan.

    The way you talk about the Joker, it?s like he is supposed to be all happy and a likable villain. Joker IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A LIKABLE VILLAIN!

    The point is not that Joker is supposed to be likable, it’s that he has a dichotomy that creates a cool cognitive dissonance. He looks like a bright and happy dapper clown and has a certain charm to him, but is actually a psychotic, sociopathic, mass murdering loose cannon. Nolan’s Joker just looks every bit as psychotic and dirty and depraved on the outside as he does on the inside, which is a lot less interesting.

    Another cool thing about the classic Joker/Batman relationship is that on one side you have a dark, demonic looking, horned grim character that is actually the angel on the side of good, versus the bright-looking, multicolored day-glo smiling clown that is actually the demon on the side of evil. Brilliant. Under Nolan’s unimaginative, cliched perspective, you just have to demonic and dark looking guys on the side of good and evil in a race to the bottom.

    I don’t mind deviations from the comics as long as they’re IMPROVEMENTS. These however we’re not.


  111. Tha Dark Knight rules!


  112. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    gramaalmaagguuamphffgulch

    HAHHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I watched Goodfellas- it was a great film.

    I watched The Godfather- it was a great film.

    I watched The Invincibles- it was a great film.

    I watched the fucking animated Disney Peter Pan film- Awesome

    7even- Ace

    The Blues Brothers- Amazin’.

    Aliens- Astoundin’.

    Amelie- Superb.

    The Dark Knight- A
    Total
    Pile
    Of
    Shite.

    I used to measure a persons movie taste on the original Hulk- You love it- You realiise super hero movies are not just fx laden toy selling franchises but proper modern tales of human emotion told with wit and comical verve.

    You dont…wellllll……….

    You like The Dark Knight…

    Nuff said.


  113. Thank you for writing this. It is a cogent, intelligent expression of the many problems that I – and a lot of people I know – had with this movie.

    The Dark Knight is basically a mediocre action movie with a lot of plot holes, a rather good performance by Heath Ledger and a portentous tone. It didn’t deserve the praise heaped on it and I’m pleased to see more and more people realising this. Why? Because maybe it will encourage the powers that be to make genuinely intelligent films, rather than “dark”, philosophically and morally incoherent ones with poor dialogue and adult characters who seem surprisingly naive and ignorant.


  114. Thank you for keying in on the “realism” issue. You nailed it on how hypocritical and selective the fans of this movie are. Forget about Superman/Batman team up in this universe…it would be preposterous.


  115. So you’re suggesting that Chris Nolan should’ve just picked up a really good Batman comic book and filmed it exactly as it was drawn out? This is the way to follow the source material, right? Get real buddy, that’s retarded. The whole point of movies is to entertain and give the audience something they’ve never seen before. Don’t hate on the Nolan for being original and expanding on the source material. Do you really think that TDK would have been as successful as it has if it was just a remake of Batman ’89? Would Heath Ledger have gotten all this praise if he was an exact carbon copy of Jack Nicholson? Would people continue to read Batman comics if new artists and writers just kept rehashing and rewriting Bob Kane’s original material? The answer is no, no and no. Yet that’s all you seem to be bitching about. You make it seem like everything “new and original” is lame and imply that they should just take the classic stuff and keep redoing them. Sorry, but not all of us want to see new versions of the same thing over and over again, no matter how great they are. One last thing, for as many “flaws” as you see in TDK, I’d sure like to see you make a film that would top it. What can you offer, besides biased complaints?

  116. So many Idiots!!!!!!! on March 5th, 2009 at 11:21 AM

    Actually, it’s BATMAN he’s trying to tip over the edge you complete tool. TDK is a bad parody of The Killing Joke and bears NO RESEMBLEANCE WHATSOEVER to The Long Halloween.


  117. I agree 100%,this movie was all over the place, it lacked any structure and I had to force myself to finish watching it. There’s 2 1/2 hours of my life I can’t get back. I had just watched Iron Man and The Hulk and they were head and shoulders above this movie. As a matter of fact I have always enjoyed the Marvel comics heroes more than the DC comic heroes. I really hated Batman The Dark Knight, Batman had the personality of a piece of toast in this movie. I can’t believe all the hype!


  118. About the boats….. The first thing I thought was that the detonators were wired either to their own boats or both (It’s the Joker, so why wouldn’t he lie?) So not pushing the button vs. pushing the button should not have been a clear moral choice (although it was presented that way in the movie).


  119. I didn’t enjoy TDK that much, either. But Burton’s Bat-movies were utter GARBAGE, and if people didn’t have such a big bias for them (since many of them were introduced to Batman throught them), they would realize the truth.


  120. “Batman doesn’t kill. So that makes Batman morally superior to the Joker and also proves the Joker wrong again. Yay. Except Batman kills Two-Face about five minutes later with no problem!! What’s the point of putting so much value into the fact that Batman won’t kill, presenting his inability to kill the Joker (and even going so far as to save him) as a moral victory over the Joker ONLY TO HAVE HIM KILL ANOTHER CHARACTER FIVE MINUTES LATER. And if killing is okay after all, then why does the Joker not deserve it more than Harvey?”

    I hate defending TDK, but DID YOU FUCKING WATCH THE MOVIE?? BATMAN ONLY KILLED HARVEY BECAUSE HE WAS SAVING AN INNOCENT LIFE, THERE WASN’T OTHER OPTION! BATMAN DOESN’T KILL AS LONG AS IT CAN BE HELPED!


  121. Um….did YOU see the movie Ese? BECAUSE INNOCENT LIVES WERE AT STAKE THE WHOLE TIME THE JOKER WAS AT LARGE AND BATMAN STILL REFUSED TO KILL HIM. EVEN WHEN TWO BOATLOADS OF INNOCENT LIVES WERE AT STAKE. That was what the Joker applauded the Batman for when Batman apprehended him and had him hanging upside down; that he couldn’t get him to break his rule, no matter how many innocent lives were at stake, even two boatloads of people. So he had plenty of opportunities where ending Joker’s life could conceivably have saved lots more innocent lives, yet he couldn’t do it. Even to save innocent lives he can’t kill supposedly. Yet 5 minutes later he does exactly that, kill to save an innocent life. And did he HAVE to tackle him off the roof and kill him? Given the skill he showed in the incredible things he did in other parts of the movie to break falls, like shoot a grappling hook around Joker’s leg to save him from a fall to the death, I’m not convinced he HAD to go for the nuclear option of tackling Dent off a building to stop him.


  122. Also –

    “Batman” can dive off of a 50+ story skyscraper, grab Rachel in mid-air, flail about for a few hundred feet and then crash into a parked cab, denting its steel surface more than 12 inches deep – and only wide up just a little out of breath and neither of them have so much as a SCRATCH?

    And yet he can’t fall ONE FLOOR with Harvey Dent – onto DIRT – and keep him from getting killed?

    And this after having established in the scene with Sal Maroni that a fall from TWO STORIES wouldn’t be likely to kill Maroni, but it would hurt (and he does, indeed, break Maroni’s ankles doing so). So, if a two story fall on his own onto hard concrete WON’T kill Maroni, why does a single story fall into DIRT – while in the shelter of “Batman’s” rubber-encased arms – INSTANTLY snuff Harvey?

    The answer? “The Dark Knight” was a bad movie. That’s why.

    Nolan’s made it clear both in “Begins” and “TDK” that he has no freaking clue what the hell he is doing.

    No, Bruce Wayne would NEVER pick up a gun with the intention of killing someone (not even the murderer of his parents). No, Batman would NEVER consider either letting someone die or killing them outright as an acceptable solution.

    If either of these movies had actually been BASED on any pre-existing work from DC (as Warner Bros. Marketing CLAIMS they were), then Nolan, Goyer and the rest of the morons involved with these films would have known how to avoid these utterly stupid plot holes and moral ambiguities. All the character development and story arcs are already there – over 80 years of work – if only they had had the humilty to rely on them instead of arrogantly trying to “improve” them.


  123. Your an idiot.


  124. While I can’t say I disliked the movie for all the same reasons (far too gruesome for my tastes), I’ve definitely been frustrated just trying to get an “agree to disagree” deal with people who did like it. I seriously felt like these people thought I was damned and I needed saving from hell:

    “For God loved the world, he gave The Dark Knight that whosoever likes it will not perish and have eternal life.”

    I didn’t like it, but apparently that wasn’t enough for some people. I know plenty of of people who don’t like my favorite movies, but I don’t see something wrong with them, or question their tastes.

    I suppose the next time I get condemned for not liking this movie, I’ll draw on some of your points (and rebuttals to rebuttals) to just give them a hard time.


  125. and I’m sure the Chinese would let an unidentified C-130 fly right through downtown Hong Kong unchallenged….sucked blew, awful…I teach film that film was crap and how many innocent people, cops, etc were killed by Batman’s f-ed up rescue plans?


  126. It was an ugly movie, which is why I didn’t like it. I personally found it depressing, sadistic and cruel. I don’t like the hype, either, and it reinforces why I never liked it in the first place. I also find it slightly perplexing the hero-worship the Joker is getting. Are we that far gone as a society that we embrace his obvious cruelty and sadistic persona as ‘cool’? Ugh. Don’t get me wrong, I think Heath Ledger is great, and his performance merited all the praise it got– but at the end of the day, I hated the Joker. I thought I was supposed to. He was a villian. He was creepy, torturous and horrific. Akin to a terrorist. Even though he stayed true to his persona (unlike anyone else in the movie) I wanted him to lose. I found it frustrating he was that damn untouchable. Obviously, “Emo Batman” wasn’t up to the task.

    That’s another thing– Batman doesn’t save anyone. Anyone. Not even by accident. He doesn’t even save the love of his life, which by the way, ‘really loved him’ — not, but don’t worry, Alfred’s not telling. Had Batman not been in the movie, it probably would have been better. Just let Joker do whatever.

    The film pulls in this sadistic torturous realism when it suits, the bank robbery, Rachel dying, corruption– and the fact that the hero doesn’t always win– yet it tends to forget itself in the most ludicrous moments, such as Harvey Dent’s face, Harvey Dent’s transformation to psychotic killer– (wouldn’t he be at least a bit mad at the Joker?) and stitching a guy up with a cellphone in him–so on and so forth. And I’m sorry, but back to his face… he looked like a human biology mannequin. He could stand in class and move his jaw while people took notes about maxillofacial muscle groups. You cannot make it both realistic and fantastical at the same time, and if you do, either one or both of those components will fail, like it did in this. You cannot your cake and have it, too. Just as you said.

    Another thing that I hate thanks to this movie– “Why So Serious?” — people quote it like it’s the best line ever created. You’re not funny or clever when you repeat it like the other ten people before you who also thought they were a) the first ones to say it again and b) hilarious. It did work in the movie, but now it’s just annoying. I’m trying to dislike the movie, not the people that liked it, but stuff like that sure make it difficult.

    I liked your post, and it makes valid and intelligent points of the weaknesses of the movie. One can like the movie ignore said weaknesses if they so wish, and that’s fine! — but in my opinion, the weaknesses added up to a bad product and the strengths weren’t enough to pull it out. That’s why I didn’t like it. And contrary to popular belief, disliking this bleak Batman movie doesn’t automatically make you a Batman & Robin fan, thank you very much.


  127. Indeed this movie was TRASH.Boring, ridiculous, full of holes.Onle one example:Dogs chew through the bat suit??? (and Batman looked so amateurish and laughable).

    Isn’t that suit supposed to be bulletproof, fireproof, what-in-hell-proof?? (By the way it looked like a cheap Halloween costume).Which idiot thought of that?

    People are just sheeps.

    P.S This was worse than Batman and Robin.Why? Well, that film was trash and is considered to be trash by almost everyone.
    TDK is trash considered by almost everyone to be great.

  128. comic book guy on August 4th, 2009 at 10:02 AM

    This movie was striving so hard to be “realistic”, but there were many ways in which it was not. May I add one more? When the police have the Joker in custody, he’s in that holding cell, still in full makeup. The first thing that real police would do upon incarcerating a guy with a face full of makeup is to remove the makeup and reveal the face beneath it. They would photograph the non-made-up Joker, and run his mug shot through their computer to see if they can find out who he really is through the national police network, and possibly through INTERPOL, also. They’re looking to see if he’s got an attachment out from anywhere else, is a suspect in crimes elsewhere, and if he’s been incarcerated before somewhere. They do this for every prisoner that comes through their doors. A “realistic” film would not forget this basic element of police work. Point is, at the very least, they would not have let this guy sit in a cell in full makeup disguising his true face. Further, a violent criminal who is a certain escape risk would be locked down a lot more also. Common sense, and basic police protocol.

  129. I like my honey on August 6th, 2009 at 3:20 PM

    There are many reasons not to like this movie and all of them are basically undebatable. Already has been mentioned that the movie tries to be realistic, except that of course the premise definitely is not. Huge problem and it’s basically unfixable. Another thing is that the script is a complete mess. Plot holes, non-existent character development, convoluted storylines: for example Oldman’s über-convoluted B-story that doesn’t fit in at all, the Gyllenhaal love angle that leaves you complete cold and unsatisfied (ok, maybe that’s a bit debatable) but holy cow is Eckhart’s quick turn into a villain pathetic. However easily worst of all in the movie is Nolans’ shameless cannibalization of Spiderman 2′s scene where the passengers (train vs. boat) decide against their personal gain and for the greater good. In Spiderman 2 it worked perfectly and was completely consistent with the themes of the movie. In Dark Knight it felt like you were watching a different movie because it was so violently out of place and obviously copy-pasted from Spiderman 2. Alvin Sargent was like 75-years old when he wrote Spiderman 2-script with zero hype and these punks decided to “subtly” steal as much they could and tried not to get caught. Shame shame shame.


  130. I don’t hate THE DARK KNIGHT. In fact, I rather liked it. To a certain degree. It was my #5 movie for the summer of 2008. But . . . I do believe that it was very overrated. And although I liked most of the film, I disliked the last half hour. I thought the movie should have ended with Rachel’s death and the Joker’s visit to the hospital to see Harvey Dent before being caught. I could have done without that ludicrous ferryboats sequence.


  131. who cares if this movie was realistic, do you really want another batman series about a man frozen from a vat of toxic sludge or a woman who falls out of a building 200 ft. up and lives because cats start to lick her …NO… I think that this film was made to the best of its ability and they showed great creativity revealing how two face was “created” in a scence those who mock this movie have a false scense of power which they wish that can obtain more of by writing ludicrious arguments about a movie they didn’t even watch past 20 minutes. Im sorry if I offended anyone but I’m just giving the facts, and the facts are that the dark knight is a great movie and deserves the millions of dollars that it has recieved.


  132. Err i liked it. Thought it was a good film. I think you all need to get lives….and err dont worry about films/movies so much. If you dont like it dont watch it……..Or maybe you could make your own version….In short what i am trying to say is that your are SAD FUCKS.


  133. By the way, Netflix member reviews (sample taken of 500 members):

    5 Stars (Loved it): 14%
    4 Stars (Really lived it): 9%
    3 Stars (Liked it): 31%
    2 Stars (Didn’t like it): 26%
    1 Star (Hated it): 20%

    54% Liked it to some degree
    46% of people who didn’t like it or hated it.

    Now, reviews may be tilted towards the negative because many people write reviews because they hate a movie. But this is nowhere near the “everyone like this movie” feeling you get.

    You are not alone if you didn’t like it, so fear not.


  134. dark knight is not batman movie.. it’s about some rich guy who watched burton’s batman and decided to copy the fictional character in real life..in a city without gargoyles, without batcave (instead,in a stupid dull underground warehouse),fighting againt some stupid lunatic that wares makeup for no reason..it’s a movie without visual magic,with a boring story of a mid crime drama.. i appreciate batman and batman begins a lot more after this dark knight failure.and will watch it tonight,to wash out dull knight from my memory..


  135. You did a great job of summarizing all the reasons I can’t stand this movie — and can’t stand Christopher Nolan. Among other subjects, I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of both comic books and movies — and being very familiar with global cinema from the mainstream to the obscure, from the silents, to the modern “talkies”, having written and directed movies myself (movies, which even at the student film level, completely surpassed Nolan’s early efforts stylisticially and thematically (oh the wonders of studio financing)); and being able to sculpt, draw, and photograph realistically and formalistically any idea that pops into my skull, and being a lifelong, ardent and passionate lover of Batman’s mythology (although I will agree his stuff really started falling apart in the early 90s) I give you my two predictions: Christopher Nolan’s Batman entries will be looked at as cultural artifacts symptomatic of a dull and witless society that took itself waaaaaaay too seriously, and equivalent to WWF wrestlers performing Hamlet; and TDK is the product of an unoriginal hack, lacking true visual sensibility, and skill in screen direction, who was meant to be writing lengthy dissertations on the allophonic assimilation of high lax vowels in the Anglo-French language, but somehow managed to dupe rich people into letting him be a filmmaker. Nolan is worse than Ed Wood, you know-nothing chumps. You know why I care? YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I CARE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!!! BECAUSE ALL YOU BANDWAGON, LISTLESS, BRAINLESS MORONS PAID THE STUDIOS TO CASTRATE CHARACTERS I’VE LOVED MY WHOLE LIFE JUST SO YOU CAN GET YOUR ROCKS OFF ON A TWO-DIMENSIONAL LIFELESS PORTRAYAL OF A CHARACTER YOU”VE OBVIOUSLY NOT INVESTED ENOUGH THOUGHT IN YOURSELF. You’re the same morons who supported Peter Jackson’s decision to remove Tom and the raping of the Shire from TLOTR; the same weevils who think it’s cool to remove Sherlock Holmes’ hawk-nose and deerskin hat. You’ve probably never picked up a thought-provoking novel your whole life unless you consider Lemony Snickett or Harry Potter to be of such merit; nor have you read anything thought-provoking in a foreign tongue. You simply don’t care enough about this character to know what can be changed, what can be tinkered with, and what cannot. Not only do you not care, but you don’t have enough intellectual fortitude or experience to realize how silly it is as a work of art or to give it a context outside of your bandwagon ejaculatory laudations. As such, you’re content allowing it to take on hyperbolic significance in your weasely, gorgonzolla minds — and god forbid the Salem witch who steps into your cloistered, inbred community and shines the light of objectivity on your photo-sensitive, inveterate meatballs. I care about the movie the same reason the Na’avi care about Pandora — because it’s ours; we’ve invested our whole lives into it. We’re not just ridiculous fan boys; we’re objective enthusiasts who want to see a brilliant Batman movie for once. I would have praised Nolan if he had crafted a great Batman film, like Burton did back in 89. But he didn’t. Not with TDK and not enough with Begins. And that’s why I criticize him… just like I criticized Burton for Returns which was terribly ultimately flawed. So yes we care. And we have every reason to care… because Nolan dumped our hero upside down in a bucket of urine, took a picture of it, and called it art. Now if you want a great Batman movie that can still hybridize realism with fantasy and still tell a great story, we need to get Alfonso Cuaron on the next Batman. If you want a visually stunning Batman with a great emotional arc, and are willing to deal with a mostly straight-forward narrative, get Ridley Scott. If you want a Batman that can satisfy on all levels, visual, emotional, and plot — get Guilermo Del Toro. But please don’t even pretend that Nolan can hold a match up to those guys, because he can’t.


  136. holy fuckin’ shit, you retarded losers are still bickering about this movie?! IT’S THOUSAND FUCKIN’ TEN, PEOPLE!!! wake the fuck up!!


  137. this was painful to read to be honest with you

    obviously you have a very simple mind


  138. To be honest, this movie was really quite a disappointment to me. No, I’m not one of those comic fans reading the batman into my 20s and 30s though I am an anime fan. Anyway, the main sticking point, though by no means the only one for me was the transformation of Harvey Dent. Dent Good *BOOM* Dent Evil Child Killing Murderer.
    Reminds me of Anakin in that last Star Wars movie except that in this case, there was no hint or sign of any evil in the Harvey Before Transformation but suddenly he’s just evil, flat-out plain evil. I don’t get how anyone with any sense of story could give this a 10. In fact, I’m pretty sure most of those 10/10′ers just thought it was a very cool movie or something. I really think these guys don’t bother to follow the story in the movie, they just…y’know blankly watch it, like porn or something. It gets them off, I think. I just can’t think of why anyone could give this movie a 10/10 unless it was something like that combined with the hype and the mass acclaim.

    -Doremi


  139. Ok ok you’ve had your diva tantrum. The dark knight was awseome. Well directed, good acting, great Joker performance. Critics rated it 97% (RT)


  140. Mellanumi: I’m sorry, but Burton’s Batman 89 SUCKED. Really hard. Even Burton admitted it (while I don’t remember the exact word he used, he said something like “I don’t think it’s a very good movie”).
    Granted, so did TDK. But Burton’s was the crappiest out of the two, even if it was one of the best Bat-movies ever (not that it means a lot).


  141. haha. Holy cow. All of your criticisms are ridiculous. Go enjoy Transformers 2, you twat. And you… nah, don’t even want to get started at your inability to comprehend what you read.

  142. James O'Blivion on June 15th, 2010 at 3:03 AM

    Wow…thanks for setting me straight on why Nolan’s Batman doesn’t employ “high-flying gymnastics” in his fighting style. Here I thought it was the heavy rubber suit…but obviously, it’s Nolan’s obsession with that goddamned “realism” crap.

    This fails to explain why Batman never used “high-flying gymnastics” in ANY of the previous films, and in point of fact, could move much better in TDK than he ever has in those films…but that’s neither here nor there…it’s Nolan and his fucking realism that are the culprits!

    Nolan probably went to Tim Burton in 1988 and told him not to have Batman do any “high-flying gymnastics” because it wouldn’t be “realistic”…and poor trusting Timmy followed his advice. He also told Burton that Batman shouldn’t be able to move his head AT ALL, and that in order to look up, he should have to wrench his spine back at the pelvis like he was about to do the Bat-Limbo. This is why the Burton costume was almost completely immobile. DAMN YOU, NOLAN!!!!!!!!

    Also, shame on Nolan for changing Joker’s origin! Well, I mean, not giving him an origin, actually. I mean, just because he didn’t have an origin in the comics for ELEVEN YEARS, and they only gave him one after the CCA forced them to turn the character into an uninteresting pussy who didn’t kill people anymore, that doesn’t mean that a film incarnation of the character should be allowed to have no onscreen origin! He should have to fall into the vat of magical goop, just like in the stupid Silver Age comics we all love so much!

    And what the fuck was up with changing Two-Face’s origin? I wanted them to keep the exact same origin from the comics, right down to seeing Batman standing in a courtroom in broad daylight, wearing a rubber suit…preferably one with nipples…just like in Batman Forever. And then, they could completely botch the character from then on. Cuz see, it’s all about the ORIGIN! It doesn’t matter if they get the essence of the character right or not…if they screw with the origin, they’re on my shitlist, buddy!

    And come on…Gotham doesn’t look like that! Like a real city? Bah! I mean, sure it was modeled after New York, and in most stories, there’s nothing even remotely Gothic about its architecture, but goddammit, it doesn’t look like a real city! And it ALWAYS LOOKS THE SAME! In every single comic! That’s why I can say that it shouldn’t look like it does in TDK. Because there’s ONE SET WAY that Gotham can, and should, look…and anything else is bullshit!

    This comment brought to you by Sarcasm brand irony. Sarcasm…mocking your stupidity since 1579.


  143. So basically you :
    a) wanted batman to leap tall buildings in a single bound and
    b) wanted a cheesy “happy ending” scenario

    Are you in politics by any chance?


  144. Wow. This may be the longest blog post ever. I think you might be confusing Batman the comic book with Batman the TV show – and we’ve already seen what a movie like that is.

    And as for the plot holes. It’s a movie. Not a trilogy like Lord of the Rings.

    In the time it took you to write this you should have written your own script for Batman and “done it right”.

    LOL.
    .-= Hot Girls Rule´s last blog ..Chat with Shawna Lenee on Web Cam =-.


  145. Ok. Let’s begin.
    Question: Have you ever read the comics?

    “The Joker is not a hideously scarred, limping, stooped over creep in the comic books. He actually looks like he’s bordering between creepy and harmless. That’s exactly what makes him so cool. He can look like a harmless clown on the outside at times, harmless enough that children would approach him, but that clownlike exterior belies the unpredictable, and psychotic murderer underneath.”

    Answer: Yeah, you’ve never read the comics.

    Question: Did you want a soppy, fairy tale happy ending?

    “The only “victory” Batman gets is when the two boats don’t blow up, which happens out of dumb luck.”

    Answer: Yeah, you did.

    Lol, what did you want, the joker to just get arrested at the bank heist and have Bruce and the Russian ballerina go on a skiing hoiiday?

    You obviously didn’t understand this movie at all. Plot holes? I can find WAY more holes in your report buddy.


  146. This has got to be the dumbest blog I’ve ever read.


  147. The only problem with this article is that you use the same reasons why you hate the movie to make your point. Plot holes? The Joker is supposed to explain to you how he managed to get a gap in the school buses during the opening scene which is primarly designed to show you what the Joker is all about? The movie wasn’t sadistic, if you think this movies is sadistic you have never seen a sadistic movie. The terror the Joker incites is, as you said, part of the character because you don’t know if he will do it that time or not. The first time it was a smoke grenade, the next time it was a massive bomb. They did the Joker just fine. You not liking the movie is fine, but your reasonings presented here are hypocritical. If you preferred a more comic style movie, then the Burton ones should satisfy you just fine. For those who preferred a bit more of a grounded Batman, Nolan’s versions are just fine.


  148. 2 years later and “Batman for dummies” is still being defended by Hollywood hacks! Holy defecation!


  149. *snooooooooooooooooooooore*

    To anybody with the misfortune of stumbling upon this horrible bore of a blog post, let me summarize it for you:

    HE EXPECTED CAMPY BATMAN ALA THE SCHUMACKER FILMS AND THE TV SHOW
    HE IS BUTTHURT THAT THE MOVIE TRIED TO BE REALISTIC

    Typical moron ladies and gents, nothing to see here, move along.


  150. T, you seem to really hate the new look for the Joker. Are you aware of what inspired the original design? It was silent film called The Man Who Laughs, and featured a man who’s face had been surgically altered so he had a frozen smile. That film was based on a book by Victor Hugo, and the protagonist was described as having had his face cut, like Ledger’s Joker. So in a way the new design was more authentic than the original.


  151. I agree completely. the dark knight was so fucking boring the joker is the only guy that made it interesting the rest was absolute bullshit.

    nolan isnt right to direct batman i mean he took out the comic feel of it and just turned it into a dull bland movie that had too much talking and not enough action.

    this movie does not beat tim burtons batman at all. heath ledgers joker maybe superior to jack nicholsons but the whole movie doesnt compare.


  152. Was soooooo dull. Batman came across as slow moving, slow thinking and more or less a non entity throughout te whole film. i would argu that Batman has never been done right per se, merely that each film simply represents the decade it was made in.
    This half of the decade doesn’t rely on talent or dialogue to move you through the film, it just relies on the background and having the contrast turned up (compare Pulp Fiction to KIll Bill) dull lighting switched for vivid colours in order to cover up for a lack of substance.
    Considering Christian Bale quite often relies on the visuals to back up what really has been 10 years of quite samey performances (talking in a quiet scratchy voice and making the ‘eyes’ to effect emotion)it’s no suprise to me that i could barely care less about whether he lived or died.

    yes previous incarnations were fairly/hugely pastiche but they didn’t claim to do something that can’t really be backed up by erm… evidence in the actual film.

    I mean, why does he seem so slow witted and new to this and untrained?
    Why does Nolan rely on idiocy and unlikely human interaction from the non hero/villan characters to move things along?
    Why bother to screw around with origins etc if they aren’t really that important to the film overall?

    I can see why people fawn over things like this. To me this is the same premature ejaculation problem evidenced in films such as

    Inception (dreams are just not that structured or boring!!)
    Brokeback MOuntain (could’ve wanked or seen a prossie at any point really)
    Avatar (good looking but vacuous script, plot, premise)
    All the Harry Potters (though did get lots of Americans reading so yeay!)
    The Da Vinci code (another book that made alot of people FEEL clever but no-on wanted to question just how you could finish that book in 3 hours)

    I could go on forever.
    I think people need to remember that the more films lack criticism is the more simplistic and purile they are, rather than somehow a film could universally appeal to a huge number of people. It shows the homogenizing of society rather than the excellent work of one director in particular.

    There is such a thing as the lowest common denominator and if you like this film without criticism then you unfortunately are in that bracket.

    Fawning is based on a lack of insight and credible critique.

    just remember that the film didn’t convince you it was a good film, you convinced yourself. (well really your subconscious decided more or less when you heard about that film wayyy before you even saw anything but that’s a whole different kettle of fish!!!)


  153. OMG! Thank you! Somebody else who sees all of the bastardization this movie did! I hate whenever people tell me how great these movies are, and I can’t help but to look at them and ask “Have you ever read the comics?”

    Nolan messed up so many characters too!(From what I’ve read, he’s barely read any of the comics) Nobody knows how some of these characters relly are! Jonathan Crane? He’s not some average height pretty boy. Ra’s NEVER taught Bruce Wayne anything! Also, in my opinion, Nolan had the nerve to ‘dumb down’ Bruce Wayne.

    And it’s because of Nolan that nobody will ever play a fan-loved Joker again; because “everyone” loved Heath Leadger’s…(I for one hated it.)

    Trust me I could go off and rant about how awful these movies were, but everyone looks at me and think I’M the crazy one.

    But I’m so relieved to know the only one who can see that flaws these…can we even call them movies…really are.


  154. Samantha, the sad fact, as you pointed it out, is that any future actor is going to be judged based upon Leadger’s performance instead of seeing the Joker (remember him folks, he’s a comic book character!)on the screen.
    Another sad fact is the Dark Knight fans act like it sacrilidge to say one bad thing about the movie!
    I’ll stick with the true source.. COMICS!

    Doc Noc!


  155. I totally agree on the stupid idea of “realism.” It held back the Dark Knight to a ridicoulous level. And the plot holes were very bad…it really took them three years to make a script with a billion bullet holes through it?

    I don’t even believe you mentioned the part where shots are taken at the mayor (and hit Gordon), and then poor Harvey Dent is left standing around. Anyone could’ve taken a shot and killed him, he had zero protection. Why is this? And then he randomly leaves with a physcho in the back of a random truck? Where did he get the magical keys? Nobody, not one person, noticed this besides Batman, who was up in a window?
    I also was not a fan of Batman being a billion steps behind the rest of the movie. This is not the Batman we saw in Begins. And to add to that, the movie should be about Batman. What is with these movie makers who shove Batman into the background (Tim Burton did the same with his awful Batman Rturns). He needs to be front and center, which is why Batman Begins was the best batman movie.

    Just to say this, Batman Forever was better than The Dark Knight. Though, in my opinion, Heath Ledger did an excellent job as the joker. I don’t hate the movie, but it is not 1/2 as good as people make it out to be, and it is ridicoulous for anyone to say it comes close to Begins. Begins also had some fantastical elements, a lot of cool action and the use of Scarecrow and his gas added in horror elements as well. That was batman. The Dark Knight was not Batman.


  156. I am coming to this very late (so late that people are starting to talk about Batman 3, haha), but I have to say that I enjoyed your critical analysis of the film’s flaws. I enjoyed your responses to many of the ruder comments even more.

    I generally liked the movie. However, I had some issues with some of the same things that you did. The fact that the Joker seems to be the very center of the film, rather than the Dark Knight for which the movie is named, is a tremendous problem. In truth, Bruce Wayne seems to play a far larger part in these movies than Batman does. And yes, they are ostensibly the same person. The comics, however, make it clear that Batman is actually the “real” personality, the core identity; “Bruce Wayne” is simply the facade -the mask- behind which Batman hides during the day and when its time to pay for the crime-fighting toys. With that said, Batman should always be depicted as a master detective and ciminologist who manages to stay one step ahead of EVERYONE while inspiring sheer terror in criminals. The film fails to do this. It’s true that the Joker usually fails to fear Batman…however, that shouldn’t be the case for his henchmen as well!

    As for the responses, I think that it’s interesting that some people view attacks on things that they enjoy as attacks on themselves. That’s the only way that some of the more venomous responses can be explained. Nice job on maintaining a cool head while you responded, T.


  157. Haha there’s actually somebody who HATED the Dark Knight. Prepare to be enraged with hate. http://bit.ly/B7NXM


  158. Wow. I really like your blog but this review was way over the top. Every movie has plothloles in them, so what? Its a movie! It is meant for entertainment first and foremost not a A&E Doc. Did I notice the same things you did? Yes. Did it ruin the movie for me? No. Why? Because I expect a movie not to make 100 percent sense some of the time. I paid 10 dollars to watch it at the IMAX, I enjoyed it and then I went home. This post did not make sense to write at all. I think you just wrote this post just to start a controversy about the movie. I honestly dont believe you wanted to leave after 20 minutes. You liked it, just admit it!


  159. This is an extremely ignorant review. For one thing, I applaud Nolan for trying to make Batman realistic, as it makes this feel less like a comic book, and more like something that could be set in our world. As for the “sadism”, Batman is a dark superhero. You want nice hero, go watch Superman or something. As for the ridiculous claim that “Chris Nolan cannot shoot action”, Batman is supposed to be “stalking criminals in the shadows”, so him being barely visible is part of his fighting style. This also tones down the violence, or do you actually want more sadism? As for the “fake hypocritical moralizing”, Batman only knocked Two-Face over the ledge because he would’ve killed Gordon’s kid, and having just been shot, he didn’t have many options. He had no choice but to knock over and inadvertently kill Dent, but he had the choice of whether to kill the Joker. While I too believe that Gyllenhaal was somewhat miscast (she looks nothing like Katie Holmes, for one thing), she was Bruce’s oldest friend, and he had deep feelings for her below the surface, which is why she was his object of affection over a more attractive woman. As for the Joker, he is supposed to be a blunt, hard, psychotic agent of chaos, hell-bent on corruption and destruction. Nolan simply reinterpreted him, so he could better fit his Batman story. The clownish comics Joker would not have fit in this world. Also, Batman’s so-called “impotence” was due to the fact that the JOKER WAS HOLDING THE KEYS TO THE BOMB!!! There is NOTHING Batman could have done in that situation that would not have provoked the Joker into blowing up the ferries. He had one chance: the good people of Gotham (along with the self-loathing criminals) would not blow each other up, and he could subdue the Joker before he could do it himself. So don’t go hating on a hyped film just because it was the rare summer blockbuster that was actually good.


  160. “His camera work is horrible”

    Thank you for mentioning that. One of my biggest discomforts while watching this overrated trash along with Batman Begins. I almost puked while watching the dizzying action scenes, no kidding. I do not recommend epileptics to watch any Nolan films.


  161. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! I came on here to try and find some criticism against the film. But like all the critics giving this movie negative reviews, you odnt present one good argument against it. I was wondering why you even bother put this site up?

    Until I read this:

    “This is what made the Burton Batman so great.”

    Mystery Solved!!!
    Oh and don’t get me started on the shit of the past decade in the form of (Batman, Batman Returns, Batman forever,and Batman & Robin) And before you say anything, I realize that Burton only directed the first two.

    All I can do now is laugh and ask, “Why so serious?”

  162. Winston Smith on May 28th, 2011 at 5:25 AM

    I just love right at the beginning, the Joker crashes through a bank with a school bus during rush hour without anyone noticing, and no damage to the bus. Even when he drives out, nobody honks at him, no pedestrians even look over.

    Or how about when Batman is blowing up all the cars, and you see the two kids “pretend” firing. Would have been great if Batman blew them up, too. I mean, how did he know the cars he was destroying didn’t have people in them?

    The Dark Knight is silly. Take it for what it is, a fun blockbuster with some cool ideas and decent performances, and you’ll enjoy it greatly. Take it too seriously or think it’s on par with something like The Godfather Part II, well, you’re an idiot who doesn’t know much about filmmaking or story cohesion.

    It’s a fun movie. I still slightly prefer the more globe trotting, visually interesting Batman Begins.


  163. Yeah, I’m in agreement that this movie was crap. What pisses me off the most, however, is that Iron Man was released in the same year, and people do not praise it nearly as much. Iron Man is clearly a vastly superior film, and its only flaw in the eyes of Dark Knight fans is that it’s not “gritty and dark.”

    Well, fuck those fans. Iron Man at least had something to say. And a lead whose voice wasn’t fucking forced.


  164. okay here goes the way you wanted for “REAL” or the thing about realism in this movie…… Nolan done his job in creating a masterpiece, well as for the joker, well anything horrible things in things can be real… like i use some make-up and be like joker and teasingly carving your cheeks with knife woulnd’t that be real??…yeah i watched this movie many times and the ones who hated are such damn asshole and can someone comment if you hate dark knight then what’s your favourite anyway maybe alice in the wonderland… HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!:D


  165. I totally agree with you. I thought the dark knight was not the best movie in the world besides Heath ledger’s version of the joker was not good I mean he was dropped in acid and his hair turned green and his skin turned white, he isn’t spouse to wear make-up and have scars also since I’m a big joker fan I think that this version his like a fake version of him and I really hate it


  166. I agree with you completely. I have spent a ton of time trying to figure out what I’m missing in this horrible movie and no one has given me a good explanation. I am not a huge comic book fan but I am a huge fan of “realistic” crime movies/books etc. I like stories about vigilantes, the bizarre relationship between criminals and law enforcement, the thin line between justice and revenge and on and on. I also like movies like the Shining and The Silence of the Lambs (I haven’t read the books for either but want to in the future) that center on a psychopath. The Dark Knight completely fails to live up to even some of the more flawed crime movies I have seen.

    Even the most realistic movies have some sort of artistic license taken where there is a departure from what would happen in the “real world,” but they usually have a good reason for it. I see no rhyme or reason to what Nolan decided to portray as “real” and what he decided not to. If you really want to show how violence affects people, you don’t have Harvey Dent just walking around the same day he gets half his skin burned off with no apparent pain, discomfort, tiredness or even fear of reinjury. Even the emotional trauma he experiences isn’t something you can see in his face. If someone who can’t speak english watched TDK, they would be surprised that Dent just randomly starts killing people indiscriminately, but they wouldn’t really look at him as having completely lost his mind (which is supposed to be what happened). I would think portraying crime as something that has long-term effects on basic things you do every day (like talking).

    I think one major problem with TDK is that it did next to nothing (at least for me) to get the audience to care about the characters. I can turn on the news tonight and hear about stuff 10 times more horrifying than what happens in this movie (or almost any movie except something like Shindler’s List) the edge that movies should have is that the characters feel as real as real people and you really care what happens to them. And TDK didn’t really show anything that would get me to relate to Dent, Batman, Rachel, Gordon or any of the other characters. If it did, I might be able to overlook the other glaring problems.

    I agree with you that the main problem is that Nolan wanted to have it both ways. Its a little strange to me, since he made Memento, a fantastic movie about a vigilante whos pursuit of justice is destroyed by his personal demons. Why isn’t Nolan satisfied with that and willing to focus on making an exciting superhero movie? You don’t have to do everything in every movie.


  167. i had two main issues with the movie:
    1) it was boring. no matter what the movie is about, it is unforgivable for it to be boring. especially if its about a superhero.
    2) batman (the character) REALLY seemed off his game. batman is supposed to be intelligent, cunning, a bully, and badass. he possessed none of these qualities in the movie.


  168. I have to admit, the first time I saw this movie I thought it was the best movie ever made. The second time I saw it, I thought it was pretty good. With subsequent viewings, my opinion of TDK pretty much mirrors this editorial. For the record, I still really like Batman Begins. I hope the Dark Knight Rises will be an improvement but I’m not going to get my hopes up.


  169. Either you’re trolling (nobody can be such an asshole, right? Right?) or you’re just a little fanboy of the ’89 version or something – in which case, why so serious? Honestly, I couldn’t get past three paragraphs of your nonsensical drivel. It really seems like you’ve put WAY too much time into hating a popular film. What are you? A hipster? I don’t doubt that we will see another rant in 2012 when ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is released.

    I have one more thing to say to you:
    UMAD BRO?


  170. Seriously? i am so amused by alt eh stupidity on this post. i don’t have a problem with people not liking the dark knigt. but what really makes me chuckle is how no one can give one single reliable reason for me to do the same. just to put my money where my mouth is. I’ll tear apart the biggest compliants that plague this page. the autor’s mains points weren’t even legitimate compliants. he just tried too hard to find far-fetched reasons to discredit this film which I will prove below.

    The incessant need to try to be “realistic.”

    First of all, the movie isn’t striving for “realism” just for the sake of it. Nolan is going for plausibility in the world of Gotham. What he did was bring Batman AS CLOSE TO OUR WORLD AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT LOSING THE ESSENCE OF THE CHARACTER. Also, if TDK was boring, then other critics would have said something. the script and dialogue was brilliant and even manages to make the side characters intersting and have something for all of them going on. it is labeled as one of the most “thrilling movies of the decade” so if you are one of those guys who just wants explosons and action, then don’t come here pretending to be smart. Transformers is more for your pleasure.

    Chris Nolan can not shoot action.

    get some glasses. The action scenes in here was well-shot and wally-Pfister shot the Hong-Kong scene as well as the Tunnel chase brilliantly. I could tell what was going on soo… And if you’re reffering to batman begins fight sequences( it was supposed to quick-cut) because starting at the docks sequence Nolan lets you know that he is presenting batman from the first appearance from the criminal’s POV.

    Disingenuous, hypocritical moralizing

    Harvey doesn’t immediately become a psychopathic murder. Wtf? were you smoking. he has a slow gradual downfall which is presented in the film itself. When he was lying in the hospital, he was already bitter and saw what ittle he was able to do to save Goath. At that point, The Joker to advantage fo the situation and twisted his morality.
    I won’t bother with the rest of this ridiculous paragraph beause i’d be here all night and even then I’m not sure if you’ll be able to comprehend this properly.

    Moving the Goalposts

    you lied when you said “I judge a movie according to the standards it sets for itself”. You call this movie hypocritical only because you don’t know the meaning of the word. If you want to find out the true meaning of the word, then just go an stare in a mirror. you’ll see what it truly means. If you had indeed been judging the movie on the standards it sets for itself, you would realize that they have taken this comic book material and tried to “SET IT AS CLOSE TO THE REAL WORLD AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE ESSENCE OF THE CHARACTERS AND THE BATMAN LEGEND”. He is still a billionarie fighting crime and hold is golden rule of not killing. As for your plot holes post, go look up the comment on that website I (under the alias “Anonymous” posted roughly an hour before i post this one. I have defeated every single point and showed him how they were NOT PLOT HOLES.

    “Youc an’t have it both ways”

    really? i just sdemosrated above you how they cleverly took a realistic(as mush as it can go with the essence of the characters) stance with a comic book property.

    Overly manipulative

    it is NOT MANUPULATIVE in the slightest. Every charcater based decision was understandable based on how they built the characters. just because one hack accused this film doesn’t make his opinion correct. Just the way you challenge other people’s opinions, you should be prepared to have the opinion of you’re minority critical agreement challenged as well. I can present you an overwhelming number of critics that praised the “”PLAUSIBILITY” of this comic-book film”.

    Forced chemistry

    of course being a fan of Burton’s and Schumacher’s adaptation, I find it ironic for you to mention this. But because of you’re infactuation with those adaptations, i don’t expect you to understand something called character development. Dent and Wayne are not fighting over Rchel. And you yourself claim that she’s “oo ugly” yet you consistently call this movie shallow. Hypocritical much? Wayne grew up and developed feelings for Rchel in Baman Bgins and he does truly love her. But because she knows tht while he is batman, they can’t have a relationship. So based on that decision, they stopped being intimate and she started to get closer to harvey while still maintaining feelings for Bruce. AND YOU FORGOT THE PART WHERE SHE IS THE ONLY FEMALE HE CAN CONFIDE IN SINCE SHE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS HIS TRUE IDENTITY. Can’t say the same about that ballerina can you?

    No nuance and subtlety in the Joker

    Joker was reinvented and developed in a way as to give him reason to exist in the city of Gotham, and more importantly, in thsi story. But he did maintasin the scary and unpredicatble personality that he possesed in the comics. And since you defend Burton like crazy, in his film the joker was the killer of Bruce’s parents. Now you wanna talk about “sticking the the comics”? Please.

    Plot Holes: I already proved the link you pointed at wrong so i’ll focus ont he ones that weren’t mentioned there.

    - Batman leaves the billionaires upstairs alone with the joker.
    See unlike you, batman was starting to notice Joker’s methods. he didn’t just kill randomly without some purpose. He was only there to kill Dent had nothing to gain from killing the billionaires, he did however announce who he targeted head of time. Judge, Commisioner Loeb, Rachel, mayor etc. So jumping out of the window after rachel gave him a greater chance of avoiding potential deaths.

    Watch the blu-ray of the dark knight. Since you didn’t see it in IMAX. The school buses were empty except for containing drives. They were all paid off and in on it.

    bruce Wayne was putting everything together in the first film and he was just having Fox gie him the aprts so he does have technical know how. he studied tech at Princeton and asked for an applied sciences job from Earle.
    But in TDK he had R&D making the godly sonar device. Again, PAY ATTENTION before you criticise!
    I have to go somehwere right now but I’ll be back later to answr the rest of your problems.


  171. dude IM SO AGREE WITH YOU in every point this is the most overrated film ever, you know why? movie critics love it cause they are old and boring, so they loved the boring movie, and at the same time people with no personal opinion start loving the film so because it was so high rated and now everybody feels smart just because they like the movie, i think for me the movie was a movie like any other, and didn’t make me feel anything, i mean i enjoyed spiderman’s action scenes and the plot was good and funny and for me is one of the best superhero movies out there. And finally someone (you) say what i always think about this movie and that i “if you wanna be realistic why you take a comic book adaptation when big idea of comic books is being totally unrealistic” and also the movie is boring trying to prove “justice” and the fight against the crime that doesn’t even exist in real world. so i hope you agree with me!


  172. Great article, I’m glad I found this today. I’ve had this fight with my friends over and over. The point is the movie was only popular because it was Batman. Laugh all you want at the Burton/Schumacher debacles, and they were, but they were immensely popular at the time for the same reason, they traded on the popularity of the Dark Knight. Fanboys around the globe want to be him and they’ll pretty much forgive any iteration until the next one comes along. I heard the same nonsense about the 1989 film. “Oh, it was so realistic.” Hogwash. It reminds of arguments I’ve had about the pile of incoherent rubbish that was Ron D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica. Dark and gritty it may have been, but more than pretentious trash trading on a beloved IP it was not. It was stilted, full of crap dialog and monumental potholes. That goes double for BSG.

    What’s worse is as the theme goes on Batman becomes more neutered than before. In comic lore he trained himself. Not so with Nolan, no, now he was taken into the secret king making assassination cult to be trained (Oh so realistic). In Batman lore, Wayne was the brilliant genius with the faux playboy persona. Nope, now he’s just a muscle head with Luscious Fox doing the thinking. Don’t get me started on the aesthetics of his stupid vehicles and this motorcycle dumbshit that appears to be set to repeat itself in Dark Knight Rises.

    The over-the-top sinister scenarios are straight out of the 60s TV show. I found myself thinking during the boat drama, “Will Batman save the dutiful denizens of Gotham from detonation? Find out next week. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel.” Had this movie not been about Batman, it would have been panned, but because it’s about everyone’s favorite adolescent wish fulfillment fantasy, it gets a pass. I noticed this with Rorschach. Snyder does a decent job of making him psychopathic, but he makes him just palatable enough, unlike the graphic novel, where fanboys start wanting to be him, instead of despising him as they should. I used to call it the Wolverine problem, but I think I might start calling it the Batman problem.

    Likewise I hear a lot of people praising Joker, which tells me that he wasn’t sufficiently rendered. Does anyone want to be Pennywise? No, because Pennywise is a goddam scary clown who will eat you because your fear tastes good. Nolan’s Joker was ripe for sympathy. Mark Hamill’s voice in the CGI Joker of the Arkham series of video games is a far better portrayal, and superior storytelling to boot.


  173. why thankyou! finally a REASONABLE review over this movie. i infact suffered so much watching it, and i think every poiny you made was accurate. how could a BATMAN movie, which already has a brilliant story, with C.B as batman, who is one of my fav actors by the way, SUCK SO MUCH?…

    christopher nolen did The prestige, and also Memento – 2 movies which i thought were brilliant, but since TDK and dont even get me started on Inception (!) – i just have to dislike this director and avoid watching any future films he ever does.


  174. You seem to just not grasp the entire message of the film.
    first off it isnt even a matter of realism but of sophistication. if its a question of ‘competence’ you cant really fault the filmmakes for making something that was a little beyond your grasp. the fantastical elements that you keep whining about not being there have been used before, in batman forever and batman and robin, and you saw how well that worked for everyone involved and for the character of batman.
    by all means, if those ones are more your maturity level or dont make you struggle to keep up as much while you watch them, then by all means, keep them on repeat on your televison. everyone else seems to be enjoying chris nolan’s vision just fine and will continue to regardless of your whining.
    now, to disprove the stupid points you think you are making:
    the fighting style is not dull its perhaps the most sophisticated MMA on the planet. and as for the complaint about jump cuts in the action scenes, the movie was pushing three hours as it is. you someone who said they wanted to leave 20 inutes into the film were disappointed that it wasnt longer with the actions scenes?
    i hope i dont have to point out how dumb that sounds.
    as for the scenes being dark, its batman. vengeance, and the night and all of that.
    now, you buthcing about the joker. personality-wise this joker was more spot on than any film or television adaption of the character to date. if you dont agree, then you havent read the man who laughs, the killing joke, switch, joker, the long halloween, or any of the other important presenations of the hcaracter and your opinion is null on the subject.
    the fact that you think heath’s joker was less creepy looking that jack’s or caesar’s just makes me think you have awful opinions and again, that these films may be a tad out of your league.
    notice i havent used once “its supposed to be realistic” while it seems your argument continuously hearkins back to “wahhhh but its supposed to be fantastical!”
    but ill go on. if you think batman in the comics, animated series, 60s tv series, or burton/shumacher era did it for no reason then you have been oblivious to the essential, unchanging drive and backstory to the character for over 60 years. a character that you are now arguing about as if being a grown-ass man who still reads comics and loses arguments to kids on the internet somehow makes you qualified to do so. as far as what you percieve as mixed messaging, the prison guards on the boats being as misguided as the prisoners, yes, the story is that gotham is impossibly corrupt. another major plot point you have seemed to miss in the last two movies. yet the people are still good. as fr as batman killing twoface, he didnt directly murder him. he did what he had to to save gordon’s son, and kept to the only rule he ever stated in the films, that he “wont be an executioner.” he saved who he could, gordon’s son. and while he was responsible, the joker knew of harvey dent’s killing rampage and was in fact the one who mentioned it to batman. so its not like he’d belive batman did it anyhow, even if someone brought him a newspaper in his padded cell, which i doubt they’d care to. joker loses because his deathwish at batman’s hands wasnt fulfilled, the people on the boats never blew eachother up, he didnt manage to sully harvey dent’s reputation and now he is in fbi custody when he wasnt planning on it. i understood all that the first time i watched it.
    if he had let joker fall, as you suggest he should have, then joker would have gotten what he wanted.
    youre linking lots of words together for your arguments but not really saying anything.
    and YOU are the one relying on possible coincidence and extenuating circumstances to try (though unsuccessfully) to make your points.
    “The message is that the average person who follows the rules or is in charge of enforcing them, when under pressure, is at the end of the day no morally better than your worst death row murderer. So even though the Joker lost because the ships didn’t blow up, he has still proven to be sort of right about the ugliness of humanity.” yes, at the end of the day, IN GOTHAM, people are corrupt. how do you not see that that sort of corruption is why batman exists in the first place and is what he is fighting against?
    now since you didnt get the fact that the joker was in processing in a holding cell waiting for the fbi to make a pick-up, for this part i just suggest you re-watch the movie before embarrassing yourself more.
    as if they left him alone out of negligence and nothing else. remember harvey dent and rachel dawes’ lives being at stake?
    yet, you’re the one bitching about the realism, while simultaneously bitching that there wasnt enough fantasy for you. YOU cant have it both ways.
    as for your comparison to the spider-man movies, im pretty damn sure nolan is aware hes making a comic book movie as well. i would love to see you direct even a single scene that didnt look like shit.
    another great quote “We have to watch minute after minute of prisoners and civilians on two different barges decide whether or not to detonate explosives rigged to the others’ boat, and linger over their “screw everyone else, I’m totally in it for myself” rottenness (and *no one* on either boat stands up and says, “stop these madmen!” — but oh yeah, then the prisoner decides to throw the detonator out the boat window, and the civilian decides he doesn’t have the heart to go through with it — so you see, folks, the moviemakers finally demonstrated to us that these people REALLY aren’t rotten after all, even though they’ve just forced us to deal with five straight minutes of odious human nature.”
    yeah great way to highlight another moron. its not about pulling the wool over your eyes at the end of the scene its about the conflict of every character trying to stand up for whats right, when its easier and perhaps more gratifying to do what isnt. what you think is fair. thats the line batman walkls trying to keep it unpersonal, trying not to be a vigilante and thats what the entire moves have been about. if you dont want any of the intelleigence or the understandable moral quandries that come with the batman mythos, then, like i said, you should stick with the freeze guns and mind control tvs of the shumacker era, because theyre probably more on the level of people with your IQ.
    by the way, go ahead and google the patriot act cause that guy sounds like he is mentally retarded.
    your next major plot hole is that maggie gylenhaal isnt good-looking anough for batman or a d.a.? how fucking shallow and stupid are you? shes a famous actress, makes more money than you do, is more successful than you, and is most likely hotter than any chick youll ever see naked without the aid of the internet. but with how much you’ve sucked burton’s dick so far in this article i assume you arent really a fan of the ladies.
    youre also just plain wrong about what you consider to the contradiciton between joker’s appearence and personality. joker looks just plain evil. jerry robinson chose a clown because he thought they were scary looking, and based this one on famous movie villain conrad veidt. i would think since you are typing all of this on the internet you would have been able to look up facts and try and verify your incorrect suspicions, but i guess i should have known, based on this article, youre prone to extreme ignorance, covering your ears when someone proves you wrong, shitting all over the character you are alleging to defend, and strutting around victoriously when all the other commenters have made you look like an ass as well.
    i can show you ny number of images of the joker from the comics, or you could just google them. but if you were that smart or reasonable, you would have before writing this article.
    obviously the joker left the penthouse before the cops showed up, ny idiot on imdb will tell you that. thats not a plot hole, thats you being a simpleton and needing everything spelled out for you when the movie doesnt hve time to dumb it down that much.
    the school bus schedules are the same every day that theres school with the exception of field trips, and yeah, he planned it. thats a pathetically desparate attempt at pointing out a plot hole.
    batman uses lucius to save time, but hes still the smartest character in D.C. again, nice try.
    you should have posted the comment from underneath your next imdb commenter, who made him look like a moron, but here goes, a short version: gordon went along with it because he trusts batman. batman did envision what he did beforehand, that is why he did it, duh. they didnt know the joker would have bazookas. and yeah, joker did it because he is an agent of chaos. i dont know what he was trying to say by saying gordon and his men werent. they were not the ones blowing shit up. so let me spell it out. the joker had a plan to get himself caught, while at the sametime making the D.a. they were transporting piss his pants. batman knows joker will try something and goes to defend them, hoping to catch the joker. they didnt realize the joker would want to be caught, because theyre cops, and why the fuck would someone want to get caught. they paid for their mistake. again, what part of that dont you get?
    they obviously also were trying to pull a rico act (its an act, not a statute, shit-for-brains) nd would have no reason to have mentioned it in front of lau’s lawyers. they didnt kidnap him illegally, they told batman they couldnt extradite hi mand he kidnapped him illegally. and gotham is still getting cleaned up even if the fbi does the prosecution. probably moreso, because gotham has many a corrupt judge. again all these things that you say are plot holes are easily explained with the ligic that the narrative implies, and you are struggling to twist them until they dont.
    “So basically these legal eagles didn’t think of the RICO statute, simply the most obvious and most-used statute used against the mob, until a EUREKA! moment occurred during an interrogation.” actually, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 is what is most commonly used in organized crime cases, as it was created for just such purposes. the rico act is a vary small potion of it, equating about to the 96th chapter of a book with 800 chapters. i suggest you do actually research instead of assuming readers are as ignorant as you.
    if you think the joker came out on top youre wrong and stupid. the whole point of joker as a villain is how powerless he makes batman feel. batman could kill him in 5 seconds with his bare hands, yet he would just be the monster then, because he knows its a road he would never be able to steer off of after that.
    if you dont realize that batman acheieved his goals at the end of the movie, of finishing cleaning up the city, at the expense of a character he wanted to give up anyways, than youre stupid.
    if you think the joker got what he wanted at the end of the movie, you’re stupid.


  175. You really think your all that and special just because you create a blog on why you hate the TDK?

    You think your so different because you didn’t like one of the greatest comic book movies?

    Your an idiot, because you clearly have not grasped Chris Nolan’s vision.
    Stop wasting our time with your pointless rant, and grow a vagina!


  176. also, you clearly dont know what cognitive dissonance means.


  177. also, you clearly dont know what cognitive dissonance means.

    He used it correctly, you stupid Nolan buttboy.

    I’ll walk you through it because you’re obviously stupid (exhibit #1 for your apparent stupidity is that you think Dark Knight is a great movie):

    Cognitive dissonance means you hold one idea in your head as true and then someone presents a second idea that defies the previous idea you held as true, and you have trouble reconciling these two opposing ideas.

    Normally in fiction a dark demonic night figure is evil and a bright, colorful smiling character is good. That’s the first idea most people hold as true.

    With Batman and the Joker, we’re presented with a dynamic where good guy is dark, demonic looking and nocturnal and the bad guy is bright, colorful and smiling. That’s a second idea, and it’s opposite to the first idea.

    Trying to reconcile both of these opposing ideas creates…wait for it…cognitive dissonance.

    If you’re so stupid that you think Dark Knight is logical, I’m not surprised you don’t know basic real world logic.

    You should not go around trying to correct people on big boy matters that require real intelligence if you’re such a simpleton that you find Chris Nolan challenging.


  178. The post above me is written by an idiot


  179. great review! i don’t judge ppl who likes the dark knight i hate the ones that are saying “tdk is the best movie ever and nolan is the best director ever” thats fucking stupid! you think you undestand nolan??? you feel smart cause you like the movie, he is always traying to make the batman movies so realistic but wait where did the joker came from?? why nolan never said that in the movie?? because he is an idiot! the movie has Alot of plot wholes and is stupid how all you little bastards are overrating nolan’s work on this movie. its simple you like it cause everybody else did, you read reviews before whatching a movie instead of having your own god damn opinion


  180. You think you’re cool, hm? You think you’re so cool, hm? Ohhhhh, you really really hurted me. You know? I’m trying to take a nup but I couldn’t sleep overnight because of your fucking ugly post. Have you ever been trying to take a nup? Fucking Americans. Yankee. Vai a sucare cazzi su un aereo.


  181. I couldn’t care less about this terrible movie, superhero movies are a travesty against comic books, but high-flying flashy martial arts look fucking retarded. High-kicks are the bullet-time of hand-to-hand combat, it’s stupid and inane looking. This is one of those things where dumbass moviegoers will go ‘wow’ and anyone who knows their ass from their elbow will cringe. Ridiculous, nonsensical stuff is not ‘cool’, it is gay and retarded.


  182. Tiffany…it’s a movie about a martial artist. Saying martial arts moves like kicks would be a stupid addition to a movie about a martial artist is like saying detective work in movies is boring so it shouldn’t be in a Sherlock Holmes movie.


  183. @ uranidiot

    I have a vagina and this vagina says this movie blows. This movie is Nolan’s fanboy fantasy he thinks about at night before he goes to bed. The fact that millions of people think this movie is great cause they buy into the marketing means nothing.

    Go take a film class or crit class and watch this piece of crap again.
    ****

    I care about this movie because it destroys years of good character and most importantly misinforms mindless dults who can’t analyze for themselves. Wake the F* up. Read the comics and watch The Animated show. That is Batman and The Joker.

    I also can’t figure out why people get furious when I say I hate these movies. My opinion is not a personal attack on you. I am glad there are others that experience this too.

    oh and Heath Ledger was TERRIABLE as The Joker. Get over it!


  184. Can you people learn to fucking spell and not act like you’re being persecuted by having an opinion about a film?

    This was the first Nolan film I’ve ever seen. I think he did a pretty damn good job. Rises will likely not do as well because it doesn’t have the Ledger hype to coast on, but it will likely be a great film nonetheless. Not just a great comic book film, but just a great film overall.


  185. Very well put. The dark shite is the most overrated movie made in the last 20 years, complete rubbish.

    I’m sick of all the praise and fanboys/girls that cream over it. Point out the many flaws and utter ridiculous things about the movie such as you have done and you get slated.

    Great post on a crap movie


  186. I don’t get how fans of this film get so hurt personally when someone expresses a disdain for something they love.

    What makes it worse is after stating how “stupid” they believe the naysayer to be they continue to right a couple paragraphs full of personal insults aimed at them. Which reveals them to be very childish indeed.

    It is so sad that many people have such low self esteem that anyone who doesn’t fully agree with them is seen as a threat to there self importance.

    As if when they where to admit there is something wrong with a film they consider to be the best would somehow reveal inadequacies in there own abilities to judge movies rationally.


  187. Let’s get real… The dark Knight trilogy is just mediocre. The Tim Burton ones were far superior and darker.


  188. Thank you! My wife and I hated this movie and it seemed that we were so alone on this opinion for a long time. We enjoyed Batman Begins and we forgave its flaws b/c of it origin status, but expected more character development in this movie. Boy were we wrong! The fight scenes had some of the worst cinematography. I thought the ending was coming several times throughout the movie; there were so many unnecessary plot twists. I totally agree on the unattractiveness of Maggie. Wow, just as bad, if not worse, casting mistake as Kirsten Dunst for Mary Jane! The worst part was the underdevelopment of the Batman character. Where was his intelligence, his great detective work, and the adequate display of his inner turmoil? I don’t think any of the live action movies capture (Michael Keaton’s Batman being the closest), but this was the worst one. Oh, don’t forget about Bale’s horrible Batman voice. For now, I’m just sticking to the cartoon movies that have been coming out every other year. They are a far less waste of my time


  189. This is 100% absolutely correct… Worst movie ever made for these reasons