I really dont get it... (Dark Knight)

[DAMG]

I think the movie is great because of the "craziness" of the Joker. He acts expectantly odd. He likes to talk about his scar, but he tells different stories, none seeming truer that the other. - Why lie? - The best scene, of course, is the self-invited meeting in which he holds no respect, but he knows, it's uncomfortably acted with a dangerous awkwardness. The Joker has very little motive besides chaos, which is caricaturist. The difference between him and a "mwahahaha" villain is that, instead of being driven by petty selfishness, he is spitefully driven to corrupt. He succeds and makes the hero question his own motives. Why does the Joker do this? He cares not for wealth, respect, or power. He is the very definition of crazy.

The movie is also very well paced, even though the end is anti-climatic. There are plenty of climaxes throughout, so while that may be odd and unsatisfying, it's consistently engaging.

The movie is well written, and the Joker is a scene stealer.

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

The things that really stops TDK from beeing "best movieeeeee evaaaaa" are, for one, the lack of general atmosphere, Gotham isn't the moody place with a constant feel of dread. In the movie it's just very generic with way too many scenes happening in the day. The second thing is the PG 13 rating, and this is the one that really bothers me. You see if you're going to make a movie who's central themes are anarchy and order, politics, murdering psychopaths and has all pretences at "realism" AND you're selling it as an "adult oriented" movie, than this>> "PG 13" << needs to disaperar. But than againg almost every big ,that was once R-rated, franchise has been getting the pussy treatment recenly(looks at treminator).
All in all the reason for wich the TDK may seem uninpressive is it's complete mainstreaming. But with all that it still manages to be above most movies with it's ideas, acting and incredible care and love, but it's just not good enough to make it as good as Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Sin City that completelly embrace their source material.


P.S. Oh yeah and while the vehicle scnes re amazing, Nolan just doesn't get fistfights.

 

[Lavi]

Compared to the last Batman movie I saw prior to Dark Knight, which happened to be the one with ice-puns, it was like a godsend of Batman-ness. Plus, I saw it within the first week and no one around me had yet.

 

[Lord Thodin]

It was good, because the acting was above par. Heath gave the performance of his lifetime, literally, and he was well rewarded. A little too well rewarded depending on your opinion of the film but thats neither here nor there

 

[twcblaze]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/REVIEWS/55996637/1023

I am my own critic.

Good for you, I figured I'd get a professional opinion, from someone who is known for not liking comic book movies. I'm biased for Batman, so I got an unbiased opinion.

A professional opinion is always good.

a "professional opinion" from someone who makes a living off their opinion alone doesn't particularly strike me as a good thing, then again, I'm not a big fan of "professional" critics.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The Watchmen was said to be unfilmable and yet it seems to have succeeded more than it failed.

No they didn't. They failed more than they succeeded.

Watchmen the graphic novel had a lot more existential ideas and conveyed them to the reader in excellent ways. But like hollywood always does, they dumbed it down for the movie and focused mostly on the more boring and "human" characters of the story (Silk Spectre and Nite Owl, that is).

Dr Manhattan, Rorschach, Ozymandias and The Comedian had a lot more scenes and a lot more "screentime" in the graphic novel. These where the characters that were interesting, and the situations and lines of thought the engaged in were interesting. But they replaced that with more post-matrix action sequences and other mind-numbing crap.

Sure it had a novelty value in nice looking special effects and Im sure you can appeal to some audience by showing scenes of a naked Malin Akerman having sex... But it doesn't really stand out much from anything else hollywood does. Action, sex and over the top special effects, but little brain behind it all.

That being said, the movie could have been worse. I could have felt outrage, but I didn't. Instead I just felt disappointed, which isn't ood eighet. But it could have been a lot worse, they could have chopped it up in a more unpredictable way, but instead the way they did it was rather predictable...

I too preferred the graphic novel over the movie, but at the end of the day the movie is still considered a success more often than a failure. Were I to point out a flaw it wouldn't lie in the deviations it took from the book but rather it's almost slavish devotion to the book. The vast majority of the movie is a shot per panel ordeal, and other than a handful of sequences (including the Black Freighter) it deviated little. The real failure as a result is the disjointed feeling the movie gives, and often abrupt transitions between characters and situations may not pull the audience along as well as they should. The result was, it seems to me, a great deal of confusion about the ending. Rather than seemingly ending up in just as precarious a position as the movie began (as the novel did), the implication many walked away with was the Veidt was in fact a the good guy who saved the world in spite of his atrocities.

Besides, when one has a book like the Watchmen, it's almost certain that a movie will never live up to the expectations of the fan base - but then the movie wasn't really for those people. The movie was for the peopel who never heard of and never cared about the comic book, and in this regard one can consider it a smashing success for it brought the bulk of what was important about the book to the screen and thus to a new audience.

 

[Pegghead]

I didn't really like it, I didn't really like Batman Begins, or Tim Burtons batman movies. It's not that I dislike batman it's just that I grew up watching that oh so classic Batman: the movie so I was given the mindset of batman being this bright, colourful character along with the villians (Which they were). Though the hype really pissed me off, Heath Ledger? Who cares about heath ledger, he was a nobody in the films industrie, emmy awar winning? It's a fucking comic book movie, that's what pissed me off so badly with Watchmen.

The Watchmen was said to be unfilmable and yet it seems to have succeeded more than it failed. Nolan's vision of Batman has revitalized a character that, outside the comic book crowd, had absolutely zero crediblity as a viable or important figure. Heath Ledger was the first actor to portrey the Joker as a broken, twisted figure rather than the usual camp with which he was portreyed (As in version of Batman from the '80's or the animated series from more recent memory).

Are any of these things really important? I suppose not in the grand scheme of things, but then if one wants to view media on such a broad canvas then the world must be a fairly bleak place. Each of these things represents a success of sorts and while they may not appeal to all I would hope that people can at least recognize positive qualities when they present themselves.

Besides, to conclude such a diatribe with an indictment against these films because they are based on a comic book seems comicly out of place. The Watchmen, in spite of being a comic book, is held by Time Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels of all time. Batman is a character that has powered not only a comic for more than five decades, but also spawned countless movies, hundreds of episodes of television, an endless line of toys and other products and stared in more than a handful of games (including the most recent darling Arkham Asylum). Comic books, more than other media, beg to be translated into film because they are by their very nature visual media. And while comic books often portrey fantastical vliians and heroes with undremt of power, the best of them examine the very real issues that people deal with throughout their lives. Make no mistake, comic books have as much value to our culture as any other work of literature, perhaps more when you consider their particular ability to attract the youngest of audiences. And, like any material destined for the silver screen, a comic book movie must be handled with care or risk falling flat on it's face.

Does my typing indicate that I seem to give two shits about peoples fanboy ranting on this forum, at the end of the day it was just a comic book movie, nothing wrong with that, but it was just a bad movie, both from a comic movie and a movie in general (This goes for both the dark knight and watchmen, sure they were alright but fanboys and hype wreck them, in fact this thread alone has made me dislike them both even more)

 

[The Unknown Stuntman]

i saw this film when it 1st came out and all it did was remind me why i stopped watching the batman movies in the 1st place, i had it figured in the 1st 5 mins that Dents coin was double headed (some 1 said like it was in the last 1 with 2 face but i quickly pointed out i hadnt seen that movie) as for heath ledger although his joker was closer to the original of the 20's n 30's comics before censorship set in and they had to tone him down i still dont think it was very good, hown can u take a role that jack nicholson played so well n make it better. Oh yes and christian bale i jus have to add THE WORST ACTOR I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ANY FILM and even in terminator salvation he was bloody terrible

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I didn't really like it, I didn't really like Batman Begins, or Tim Burtons batman movies. It's not that I dislike batman it's just that I grew up watching that oh so classic Batman: the movie so I was given the mindset of batman being this bright, colourful character along with the villians (Which they were). Though the hype really pissed me off, Heath Ledger? Who cares about heath ledger, he was a nobody in the films industrie, emmy awar winning? It's a fucking comic book movie, that's what pissed me off so badly with Watchmen.

The Watchmen was said to be unfilmable and yet it seems to have succeeded more than it failed. Nolan's vision of Batman has revitalized a character that, outside the comic book crowd, had absolutely zero crediblity as a viable or important figure. Heath Ledger was the first actor to portrey the Joker as a broken, twisted figure rather than the usual camp with which he was portreyed (As in version of Batman from the '80's or the animated series from more recent memory).

Are any of these things really important? I suppose not in the grand scheme of things, but then if one wants to view media on such a broad canvas then the world must be a fairly bleak place. Each of these things represents a success of sorts and while they may not appeal to all I would hope that people can at least recognize positive qualities when they present themselves.

Besides, to conclude such a diatribe with an indictment against these films because they are based on a comic book seems comicly out of place. The Watchmen, in spite of being a comic book, is held by Time Magazine as one of the 100 greatest novels of all time. Batman is a character that has powered not only a comic for more than five decades, but also spawned countless movies, hundreds of episodes of television, an endless line of toys and other products and stared in more than a handful of games (including the most recent darling Arkham Asylum). Comic books, more than other media, beg to be translated into film because they are by their very nature visual media. And while comic books often portrey fantastical vliians and heroes with undremt of power, the best of them examine the very real issues that people deal with throughout their lives. Make no mistake, comic books have as much value to our culture as any other work of literature, perhaps more when you consider their particular ability to attract the youngest of audiences. And, like any material destined for the silver screen, a comic book movie must be handled with care or risk falling flat on it's face.

Does my typing indicate that I seem to give two shits about peoples fanboy ranting on this forum, at the end of the day it was just a comic book movie, nothing wrong with that, but it was just a bad movie, both from a comic movie and a movie in general (This goes for both the dark knight and watchmen, sure they were alright but fanboys and hype wreck them, in fact this thread alone has made me dislike them both even more)

Honestly, I do not particularly care if you do or do not accept my arguments has having merit. But, I would advise you to distinguis between a fanboy and one who presents a case with verifiable information in it. You may dispute my position, but I hardly think you can dispute my assertions about The Watchmen being on Time's top 100 novels of all time list. That said, having presented my argument with at least what I believe to be a valient effort at civility and proper use of grammar (and my keyboard's punctuation keys), I would at least ask you do the same.

 

[Zersy]

I finally, about 3 hours ago, saw the Dark Knight for the first time with my girlfriend, and in all honesty I can say this is probably the most overrated movie in recent memory (rivaled only by the likes of Slum Dog Millionaire).

Now I had no intention of ever watching this movie, because the Joker "fan base" pissed me off to no end. I think it's safe to say I can tell what kind of person you are if you have anything that says "Why so serious?" and know we have nothing in common, and can never be friends.

Ranting aside, can anyone please point out why this movie is good? Or better yet, explain why people are so obsessed over it? Sure, the "OMGHEATHLEDGER" trend lasted about 2 months, but it still wasn't deserved.

Just wondering if I'm the only person who didn't enjoy this film?

Well you need to have some sort of intrest in batman or his villains. But the movie was very well written and had a great balance of nearly everything so yes you are the only person who hates it. (and slum dog millinaire was a good movie ,hands down)

 

[internutt]

then he LETS HER DIE for harvey

Joker switched round their locations when he revealed them to Batman. Batman thought he was going to save the woman, but found Harvey instead.

I personally thought the film was alright. Heath Ledger's Joker was naff. There wasn't enough Joker in his character, he was just a psychopath. Honestly I just think that people like Heath's Joker only because it was his last full role in a film. Mark Hamil's Joker as Arkham Asylum shows is still the best there is. But of course this is just an opinion.

What the film really needed was Harley Quinn beside Joker.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Matter of opinion. I liked the way they made the Joker. And the movie was more about him rather than Batman. It had some great twists, and the overall story was awesome.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

To everyone bitching about Christian Bale's Batman voice...

Think about it for a second.

Bruce Wayne's entire persona of Batman was created to instill fear into the criminals he hunted, and to disguise his real identity.

It is not outlandish to think that Bruce Wayne (NOT Christian Bale) would deepen his voice to those death metal growls in order to further enhance his fear inducing abilites, and prevent people from recognising his voice (being one of the most famous men in Gotham)

If any of you read the original source material (or even played Arkham Asylum) you would know that a major theme in the Batman universe is that the protagonist is arguably just as insane and prone to seemingly ridiculous antics as the antagonists.

 

[Terrorist_school_drop-out]

The Watchmen was said to be unfilmable and yet it seems to have succeeded more than it failed.

No they didn't. They failed more than they succeeded.

Watchmen the graphic novel had a lot more existential ideas and conveyed them to the reader in excellent ways. But like hollywood always does, they dumbed it down for the movie and focused mostly on the more boring and "human" characters of the story (Silk Spectre and Nite Owl, that is).

Dr Manhattan, Rorschach, Ozymandias and The Comedian had a lot more scenes and a lot more "screentime" in the graphic novel. These where the characters that were interesting, and the situations and lines of thought the engaged in were interesting. But they replaced that with more post-matrix action sequences and other mind-numbing crap.

Sure it had a novelty value in nice looking special effects and Im sure you can appeal to some audience by showing scenes of a naked Malin Akerman having sex... But it doesn't really stand out much from anything else hollywood does. Action, sex and over the top special effects, but little brain behind it all.

That being said, the movie could have been worse. I could have felt outrage, but I didn't. Instead I just felt disappointed, which isn't ood eighet. But it could have been a lot worse, they could have chopped it up in a more unpredictable way, but instead the way they did it was rather predictable...

Sure you're entilted to your opinion, mine is that Watchmen is the best movie of the year and an instant classic, but one thing I do have to tell you is that it wasn't dumbed down. You see, getting Watchmen made was a long hard road, and the studios allways wanted to make it more family friendlly and generally dumb it down. But Snyder and crue basicly said "Fuck that" and had Manhattan's penis, rape scene, desintegration and bone-comming-out-of-arm goodness, and took a risk with that(R-rated superhero movies are NEVER a safe bet). So yeah as fans of Watchmen(both you and me) our take on the movie can be a love or hate one, that's the general view on this move and I can deffenetly see why.

 

[Spitfire175]

A piece of overhyped kiddie-action.

 

[wadark]

I thought Dark Knight was great. Sure it was a bit overhyped, but what isn't these days. I thought killing off the girl was a dumb move but its their movie.

Regarding Heath Ledger, of course a lot of it surrounded the fact that he passed away, but he was still really good. I think a lot of things were misconstrued, either by the studios or the fans. People heard that Heath Ledger was totally freaking amazing in the movie, and somehow made the leap that he would be like the main character or something.

I will admit that after the hype, I was let down by how little screen time he got, but when I thought about it, I realized that he wasn't meant to have a lot of screen time, and what time he did have was very good.

In short, hype kills everything. It bloats expectations to unattainable levels, and ruins the final opinion of a game/movie/whatever.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Over all i liked the movie

I still prefer michael keaton to christian bale, his voice is just so much cooler.

I dont know how 'why so serious' became a legendary line, it doesnt strike me as something amazing.

But still, great movie.

 

[David_G]

I think that people (including me) like the Dark Knight because it wasn't your typical superhero movie, same goes with Watchmen. In the other movies, in the end the superhero overcomes the odds and beats the bad guys and all is well. But in the Dark Knight, in the end, Batman sacrifices himself and Two-Face becomes the hero. That's what I liked in it, it was different.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I too preferred the graphic novel over the movie, but at the end of the day the movie is still considered a success more often than a failure. Were I to point out a flaw it wouldn't lie in the deviations it took from the book but rather it's almost slavish devotion to the book. The vast majority of the movie is a shot per panel ordeal, and other than a handful of sequences (including the Black Freighter) it deviated little. The real failure as a result is the disjointed feeling the movie gives, and often abrupt transitions between characters and situations may not pull the audience along as well as they should. The result was, it seems to me, a great deal of confusion about the ending. Rather than seemingly ending up in just as precarious a position as the movie began (as the novel did), the implication many walked away with was the Veidt was in fact a the good guy who saved the world in spite of his atrocities.

Besides, when one has a book like the Watchmen, it's almost certain that a movie will never live up to the expectations of the fan base - but then the movie wasn't really for those people. The movie was for the peopel who never heard of and never cared about the comic book, and in this regard one can consider it a smashing success for it brought the bulk of what was important about the book to the screen and thus to a new audience.

As for Veidt being interprated as the good guy, that's not really a mechanic of the movie, the same thing was in the graphic novel.

Part of what makes Alan Moore so brilliant is his standpoint of not making any of his characters obviously good or obviously evil. In fact, he's even said that it's insulting to the reader to do so.

Instead he makes them ambiguous. He let's the reader think and let them draw their own concluscions as to whether a character is good or evil.

In fact that was one of the primary failures with the movie V for Vendetta, since V was portrayed as this sort of romantic victorian hero, and everyone with the party was obvious freedomhating nazis of some sort. In the comicbook V could at times be a romantic victorian hero, while at others he could be one of the most uncomfortably awful terrorists alive. The reader is left to decide for him- or herself what V was, if he was a lunatic terrorist or if he was a heroic freedomfighter. That's what made the grapic novel simply awesome, you're never served anything on a silver platter by that ingenious guy called Alan Moore, he actually let's you think for yourself.

Hollywood in general doesn't seem like they are big fans of the audience actually thinking during a movie, that's why they tend to ruin everything.

And for Watchmen, they did what you said. They tried to bring "the bulk" of Watchmen to the audience. Which is impossible, since you can't do that with something like Watchmen. The graphic novel is like clockwork, you can't just leave out some gears, no matter how small and insignificant they might seem and then expect the clock to work properly.

So, a B for effort. But an F for the result. That's all I can say about the movie...

 

[GrandAm]

It is over-rated because it is Batman. He is the superheroesest of super heroes. He is a regular schlubb. Some dude with gadgets and an analytical mind to solve the worlds problems. More or less than what Superman or Spiderman can say. All fececiousness aside: I agree this movie is over-rated. Do I think it is better than the first by Nolan, sure. But it is far from a dumb movie. Do I agree that if it wasn't for Ledger dying that its hype would be smaller, sure.

Given the superhero type movie it is, it does an excellent job. The actors, script and direction it is definately better than most in not underestimating its audience intelligence.

But was it the best end all be all. No. I liked it for what it was. But I have to acknowledge it is not the end all be all. It is just one of the better of the Hero movies that have come out in the last decade. In that it is fine. But in one the best movie of all time , it does fall short. But they all do with the exception of the original Star Wars trilogy. Specifically, The Empire Strikes Back. Even though it was a sequel it tells more of a story than most.