I still have a soft spot for Burton’s entries in the Batman series, and for Micheal Keaton in the title role. Maybe it’s because I was at the perfect age when they came out.
-
Best superhero movie ever!!!
im a lifelong comic fan and although i did think the dark knight was absolutley a step in the right direction in terms of breaking out of those tired “comic book movies” ideal, i still felt like some of the dialogue felt a little silly at times. Not a lot, just some parts of the script in terms of plot devices and and dialogue kinda got to me. I still really enjoyed it and i did think it was a pretty great movie and should be regarded as such, not just as a “comic book movie”. Not the greatest by a long shot though and that coming from a fan of comics/batman/film. Again, definetly a step in the right direction. Overhyped? Yes, but i have to admit that Heath Ledger was dope in that movie and i’ll definitely join the masses in the overall gushing aporvale of his performance.
How can a bulletin board supposedly comprised of people who understand cinema think that THE DARK KNIGHT was anything other than bombastic trash? As I wrote elsewhere:
My main complaint is that the movie simply goes on too long. My other complaint is that, even at 150 minutes, there’s so much plot that the narrative has no room to breathe… There’s no cadence or flow, it’s just one big thing after another.
As such, The Dark Knight suffers from the same mistake as Spider-Man 3 — too many stories for one film. In Spider-Man 3 you had three villains loosely connected (Venom, Sandman, and evil Spidey), and it felt like the writers were afraid to bet such a big film (and franchise) on any one story, and so spread it around. TDK has two movies packed into one — The Arrival of The Joker, and The Rise and Fall of Harvey Dent.
The Joker thread is the least engaging, as it simply revels in chaos and nihilism for its own sake. It might be valid social commentary, but it makes for lousy storytelling.
The Harvey Dent thread is more disappointing, because inside it there’s a legitimately good movie waiting to bust out. The love triangle between Dent, Batman, and Dawes, mixed with the origin of Two-Face at the hands of the corrupt cops that Dent attempted to ferret out… these are elements of strong drama.
But because that story is intertwined with the Joker’s, its heart gets lost. I so with Nolan had the guts to choose just one of the threads (I’d prefer the Dent thread, though a Joker thread with an actual narrative could have worked), and gone with that… But, again, I think there’s a fear of putting all your eggs in one narrative basket when dealing with a $150 million investment.
The thing I find most intriguing is the public perception of TDK. It will be the highest grossing movie of the year, and it also has remarkably high critical acclaim (95% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, 82 on Metacritic). All I can think is that this relentlessly dark and nihilistic film is tapping into the American Zeitgeist, confirming our society’s misery in the face of an endless war in Iraq, housing prices up, gas prices up, food prices up, economy stalled, health care a mess, having to face the reality that our government condones torture, etc. etc.) Americans feel like victims of forces far beyond their control, as do the citizens of Gotham at the hands of the Joker.
Honestly, this is a 200 million dollar summer blockbuster comic book movie that is supposed to be taken seriously as social commentary. It’s also a quasi political film-meaning a film that is supposed to address the way we live and govern ourselves, in which every single character is an elite or incredibly powerful. Nolan has no regard for how regular people exist in a dystopia but he’s perfectly happy to have more attractive characters tell us about how we live and what we do or do not deserve. He wants the prestige of delivering a movie with conscious political discourse but has little regard to how regular people feel about anything. An elitist with a capital E.
I’m not a snob either. I think that if the “Watchmen” is done faithfully it will make The Dark Knight look like the dull circle jerk that it is.
I thought I was the only one who thought, at best, the Dark Knight was the most overrated movie of the year. It is not a movie I would have normally seen (as Bobillot16 said above, I usually don’t do comic book movies). But I went mostly as a tribute to Heath Ledger, and he didn’t disappoint. Beyond that, there was nothing for me to take away from this film. I could have gotten the same thrill (and nausea) at an amusement park, the same aethetic pleasure from touring a robotics factory.
Nothing else, sorry…
I didn’t think it was bad at all (for a super hero movie) but it shouldn’t be anywhere near the top of a Greatest Films of All Time list.
Some comments from someone who lives in Israel and isn’t bombarded by Hollywood hype.
1. Action movies, especially comic action movies, offer a different sort of pleasure than other “serious” movies — but one can be entertained by both. For instance, my favorite movie of all time is 81/2, but I also love The Terminator 2, since I think it’s just superbly made cinematically.
2. I only saw The Dark Knight once, which wasn’t enough to have a critical appreciation. I regret that I didn’t see it again, since I enjoyed it immensely — and thought Heath Ledger’s performance phenomenal. The Dark Knight was one of the scariest movies I’d ever seen — and it was mostly because of his performance.
3. BUT – the plot becomes preposterous. When I complained about this to my 25 year-old son, he said, “Dad, it’s comics.” So I tossed out that criticism. Again, I would have to see the movie again to decide how easy it is to toss that out.
4. Of course, it’s not one of the best movies of all time. But who cares? It’s still a terrific movie, though. I realize that there are those who just don’t enjoy action movies, even when they’re superbly made. That always reminds me of Pauline Kael’s article on “trash in film.” And it saddens me that there are people who love cinema but can’t appreciate the “trashy” and popular side even when it’s well-made
5. There is, it seems to me, a profounder question being bandied about but never quite broached — which is, what makes for an excellent film? Or when can a film be “well-made” visually and yet not be top notch?
re: Michael
i’d like to echo your question, ‘what makes for an excellent film?’ when i approach a film, i try to stay objective, and take the film as it is, not constrained by any preconceived notions of genre or excellence i might have. This definitely applies to my appreciation of the Dark Knight. For what it is, a Comic-book based action moral thriller, it is top notch. Maybe the best such film i’ve seen (although i haven’t seen many comic movies since the disastrous Spiderman).
I think everyone has a different definition of “trashy” when it comes to film. For me, it’s the campy romance movies. The chick flicks. Talk about preposterous plots. On occasion there are a few that stand out, but i still steer clear.
Another category that people might find trashy (i used to, actually), is the campy sci-fi horror flicks from yesteryear. I love them now, and just relish how delightfully “trashy” they are.
MR E 2 ME, Maggie Gyllenhall wasn’t any better.
TDK was too long, and Bale’s death-metal voice drove me up the wall.
But it was still an entertaining action movie. I just wouldn’t place it anywhere near the top films of all time.
Maybe I am reacting to what The Dark Knight is—-a Comic Book Thriller. With all of the potentially great stories out there, waiting to be written and produced, that appeal to the human condition, there are a preponderance of comic book films being made (and gross-out comedies and extreme horror flicks)—-that seem out of proportion to the total output of movies. But then, it’s a business, I know….
I enjoyed the film. You could do a lot worse this summer.
In regards to the criticism of hyped-up uberfans slamming the movie into the top 5 greatest films ever on IMDB, I couldn’t care less. The only thing I use IMDB for is finding out who worked on what movie and things like that. One must remember that the people who rate the movies are the same ones who post on the forums, and well, we all know what those troll infested swamps are like.
I absolutely loved The Dark Knight.
I don’t understand disliking a film because of it’s place on a subjective “greatest” list. I’d completely agree: TDK is not the greatest film of all time. It’s not even one of the greatest films of all time.
I believe TDK actually goes beyond supherhero films. Yes, Christian Bale dresses up in a ridiculous outfit and talks in a throaty, hoarse tone. Yes, he flies around and stops bad guys. This is not all the film has to offer. Characters actually have depth beyond being trapped in a dangerous situation. Batman is as much a hero as Travis Bickle; they both want to clean the scum off the streets.
ANGGGELO has a good point. I’m not the biggest Dark Knight fan by any means. I think the hype and greatest titles it’s been getting is completely overblown. But I do agree that it goes beyond superhero films and pretty entertaining. I did think the film dragged on a bit, and the last 20 minutes for me was very forgettable. And that last little monologue by Gary Oldman kept making me cringe.
I read and heard a ton of hype and acclaim for The Dark Knight, but I don’t recall once hearing or reading anyone refer to it as one of the greatest films of all time.
For the record, this is my personal list of greatest films of all time:
1. The Dark Knight
2. Spiderman
3. Batman Begins
4. X-Men
5. Iron Man
6. X-Men II
7. Spiderman 2
8. Hulk (Ang Lee)
9. The Incredible Hulk
10. Sin City
11. The Punisher
12. Tank Girl
just read an insanly long thread on imdb comparing the joker with the duke from Salo… while i loved the movie (or probably more heath ledger in the movie) i think this is taking it a tad to far. if you take it for what it is and watch it on its on terms, it couldnt have been done any better
www.darkcampaign.com
@ Amelia – I’ll take Maggie over Katie any day. She wasn’t really given that much to work with anyway, in this case.
You are kidding Furman ? Right ?
i dont think furmans kidding. probably just REALLY digs comics.
and yea, it is definitely NOT one of the greatest films of all time. but dammit, how can u not have a good time watching it? everyone who has a stick up their ass just because all the kiddies wont shut up about, need to chill out. it is annoying hearing everyone say its so much more than it is, but guess what, these people HAVE NO DIRECT EFFECT ON THE FILM ITSELF. also letting little things liek bales stale acting is kinda cheap. if ur someone who hates the flick not because of the film itself, just consider what a douche u are.
and btw, no guys, the dark knight is NOT one of the top films of all time, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IMDB SAYS. its just a list on the internet dammit, grow up.
“also letting little things liek bales stale acting is kinda cheap.”
This isn’t a complete sentence, but I guess what you mean is letting it bother you is kinda cheap.
But it isn’t. I’d say a stale performance from a lead actor in a movie, a movie where the lead is BATMAN, is actually quite crucial. He’s in nearly every scene in the movie after all.
If Robert De Niro sucked in Taxi Driver, Taxi Driver probably wouldn’t be any good either.
If Furman really dug comics, he’d hate most of those movies.
The Dark Knight really bogs down when in the 5th act (in a movie structured in 3 acts) the writers decided to just leave the placeholder notecards in the script instead of changing it to real dialogue, and everyone began saying the theme of their character out loud. Plus, you know, uninteresting lead. Heath’s performance was great. Was it Oscar great? It was nomination great, but not necessarily win-worthy. Also, if you want to make Travis Bickle comparisons, you should be talking about Batman Begins, where Batman/Bruce Wayne is actually featured in the film as a main character, instead of an occasional set-piece.
If Furman really dug comics, he’d hate most of those movies.
The Dark Knight really bogs down when in the 5th act (in a movie structured in 3 acts) the writers decided to just leave the placeholder notecards in the script instead of changing it to real dialogue, and everyone began saying the theme of their character out loud. Plus, you know, uninteresting lead. Heath’s performance was great. Was it Oscar great? It was nomination great, but not necessarily win-worthy. Also, if you want to make Travis Bickle comparisons, you should be talking about Batman Begins, where Batman/Bruce Wayne is actually featured in the film as a main character, instead of an occasional set-piece.
Bruce’s principles are the same from Batman Begins.
I think Ledger deserves an Oscar. I used to think he was an extremely average actor, truthfully. Just because he looks like he wore too much mascara and cried shouldn’t prevent him from winning. His performance wasn’t the evil antagonist nor was it a normal nausea-inducing lunatic. (Don’t get me wrong, blowing up hospitals and shoving pencils in people’s eyes is lunatic, too.) Ledger’s performance was amazing and he may have stolen the show in the audience’s eyes, but he still added to the film in a supporting way. Think of Michael Clayton. Tom Wilkinson tore the screen up and stole the film from Clooney. Although I’m still debating it, I think Wilkinson deserved to win more than Bardem.
comic book lovers can be split into two groups, the ones that are so die hard that they cry and complain when someone tampers with the smallest details of their favorite comic. then theres the ones that just love comics so much that seeing it transferred into any other media makes them giddy, regardless of what ‘film experts’ say about it. people like that love comic book movies simply because the source material is comics.
as for batman being the main character, meh.. i rly dont think so, even if the title is his nickname.
btw, not sure how confusing the sentence could have been, but that really felt like a cheap shot at my grammar or something. is that really what this thread is going to come to? if not, my misunderstanding.
it’s okay up until the 90 minute mark, when everything starts to go DOWNHILL terribly… so many unnecessary sub-plots… and the idiocy of introducing a MAJOR character when th movie has only 20 minutes left… it was overlong and felt like it was thrown together at the very last minute… the best thing about it was Heath Leager, who was brilliant, I must say… but everything else: 2/10
No way, I love it….deserves a slot in top20 maybe, purely because of Heath Ledger and a very very deft plot
Ally the Manic Listmaker
Yeah, I hate the hype. I think Heath Ledger is just a druggie and that his performance wasn’t that amazing. It was pretty silly actually. The makeup and everything was pretty bad.