Comments on: Why I Hated The Dark Knight

By: Mellanumi

Mellanumi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:38:35 +0000

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.

By: demon

demon — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:00:00 +0000

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..

By: moogiex

moogiex — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:07:46 +0000

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.

By: Jonny b

Jonny b — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:59:17 +0000

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.

By: D.C.

D.C. — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:36:01 +0000

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.

By: Rosie

Rosie — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:10:39 +0000

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.

By: I like my honey

I like my honey — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:20:24 +0000

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.

By: comic book guy

comic book guy — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:02:21 +0000

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.

By: Talos

Talos — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:29:44 +0000

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.

By: LadyDi

LadyDi — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:14:56 +0000

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.