# The "I think The Dark Knight is way overrated" Thread



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

OK so I can already guess that people that do like the film are going to open the thread so before giving a knee-jerk reaction please bear this in mind: I am not attacking the film, I am just seeing if there are other people out there who like I do, think this film doesn't live up to the hype.

Reasons why I think it's the most overrated film of all time are:

VERY bad editing. It's not 10 minutes into the film where you hear Christian Bale talking, and a second later he is still talking but it's cut to an angle where his mouth is not moving. For such a high budget movie, this really is not an excusable mistake.

Christian Bale's Batman voice. Seriously? WHERE IS SHEEEE?! Whenever my girlfriend and I watch it, we crack up whenever he speaks as Batman.

Ledger's Performance makes the rest of the film seem drab. With such an incredible performance, it really knocks the consistancy of the film off balance, I find myself just waiting for the next Joker scene each time a Joker scene ends.

The plot pace. Awful pacing, they tried to cram too much into the 2 and a half hours. The film is a PG13/12A but I wonder how many 12/13 year old's actually understood what the fuck was going on? I had to watch it a second time to understand myself.

Cliches. For such an 'original' film, it includes cliches such as 'which one to save?' twice throughout the film. 

Maggie Gylenhaal. I'm sorry, but she is just not hot enough for the lead female! Shallow, I know, but when compared to other films she seems an odd choice. She looks like a sad clown, it's like having The Joker's wife in the film too.

I've been back and forth between thinking this is a good film and thinking this is a bad film, but I just can't get over these shortcomings.


----------



## cycloptopus (Oct 9, 2009)

Oddly enough, we were just talking about this last night w my band @ practice. Heath Ledger was brilliant as Joker, no doubt. But the rest of the flick is questionable, and you make some good points there.


----------



## playstopause (Oct 9, 2009)

I soooooo disagree with this. 

... But I would need to see the film again to counter-point your arguments with strong evidences.


----------



## Elysian (Oct 9, 2009)

playstopause said:


> I soooooo disagree with this.
> 
> ... But I would need to see the film again to counter-point your arguments with strong evidences.



Me too, I've seen Dark Knight numerous times, and it's always great.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

I thought it was okay. Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger had great performances... everything else was kinda milktoast, IMO.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> I thought it was okay. Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger had great performances... everything else was kinda milktoast, IMO.



My feelings exactly 

Take these two out of the equation and you have... a not very good film.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

Absolutely don't agree with you but I am also a Batman fangirl to the max.  Plus I have never watched a Batman film expecting to be blown away by originality or non-cliche plot twists. It is, of course, based on a character who has been consistently written about since 1939.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Mixed bag so far


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

Just to add a little something to the mix, I agree with James Rolfe on most things and this was a pretty well thought out review:



Starts at 8:17, but really, it's worth watching the whole thing (including the first two parts, which you can find on his youtube channel).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Ah that's something I forgot!

The fighting scenes are absolutely rubbish in both Nolan films


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

I agree with James on this one. The first Nolan movie, the fight scenes were a total diarrhea crap mess but I thought the way they shot the ones in TDK were much more coherent; while still in Nolan's 'style'. That part's just a matter of opinion, though, really.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

I thought the fightscenes were more coherent than Batman Begins, but because they shot half of The Dark Knight with the IMAX camera (they said they wanted to shoot longer cuts), the fighting scenes ended up as TOO coherent, which takes away from the chaos and realism of a fight scene. Maybe Nolan will get it right in the next film, if he ever does one.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Oct 9, 2009)

It was good, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't give it all the credit everyone else did.

To be perfectly honest though I've only ever watched 1 movie and thought it honestly bad and that was 'doubt'. Never before have I sat through a movie and at the end said *what the fuck was that* before that movie. I'm usually content with most movies so my opinion Isn't very strong


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

Also, I think the guy reviewing would have given a different review if he hadn't done the video immediately after watching it. Hindsight is everything.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

^
That's very true. I follow his videos/blogs closely and he usually drifts a little bit on his opinions over time.

Also, the thought of the next Nolan movie is an intriguing one. I noticed he's grown more into his style over the last two, and I don't doubt he's going to take more chances this time around. Could be a good thing, could be a horrible thing.

Bryan Singer's X-men is a great example. He started the series trying to keep it kinda shallow (wasn't totally soaked in either backstory, or trying to break new ground) but still injecting a bit of his own ideas into it. It did well, so then he did the next and it drifted a bit further toward his vision... but by the third movie, comic book fans hated it, but alot of people saw the direction he was going from the beginning and that movie didn't surprise them.

Hell, you could say the same thing about the Spiderman movies. They didn't take a lot of chances in the first one, but as the series went on, it polarized people further and further... some people loving one and maybe tolerating two and really disliking three; and the rest thought it actally got better every time.

This next movie will be Nolan's chance to fully realize his vision for Batman and the franchise... It'll be interesting to see what direction he takes it, who loves it, and who hates it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

IIRC, Nolan has been quoted as saying he won't do another Batman film on grounds of integrity but I think if enough money is waved under his nose that integrity will dissolve.

Oddly enough, I think The Prestige is Nolan's best film. It's definitely in my top ten.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Oct 9, 2009)

The Prestige was good 

i thought TDK was pretty awesome. it´s not a close and personal artistic movie, but rather some of the best hollywood stuff i´ve seen in a long time. it breaks with the hollywood action traditions, and it´s badass. sure, it´s got inconsistencies, but it´s alot more coherent than many hollywood movies i´ve seen. i´ve seen super-hyped big-shot hollywood movies with really poor production and aditing that i could do better myself (and that says something about the movie people, not about me ). but of course, sexy female lead, thumping music, physics-contradicting moves, and pretty CG effects will negate all of that to most people...

of course, TDK wasn´t oen of those movies that made me go "whoa. that touched me, and made me think", but it DID make me go "whoah, that was awesome! that was so cool and untraditional as an action-movie!" (though i didn´t say that out loud, as i´m not a douchebag)

it´s just an action movie about a cartoon hero. lighten up


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> ^
> That's very true. I follow his videos/blogs closely and he usually drifts a little bit on his opinions over time.
> 
> Also, the thought of the next Nolan movie is an intriguing one. I noticed he's grown more into his style over the last two, and I don't doubt he's going to take more chances this time around. Could be a good thing, could be a horrible thing.
> ...



Actually, Singer didn't direct the 3rd X-Men. He said "Let me finish Superman first, please" and the studio said "Fuck you, we'll get somebody else to do it." and what we got was the result of that decision: Fraiser as Beast. 

For whatever my 2 cents are worth, I'll say Nolan's films are far less overrated than Tim Burton's were/are. I look back on those and I can't even bear to watch them any more because they're just so terribly campy and awful. For however much the Nolan movies are overrated, I think the Burton movies are that much MORE overrated.

And shit, at least none of the above is the recent Batman: Arkham Asylum game. What a fucking rip off.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> VERY bad editing. It's not 10 minutes into the film where you hear see Christian Bale talking, and a second later he is still talking but it's cut to an angle where his mouth is not moving. For such a high budget movie, this really is not an excusable mistake.



I'm pretty editing-blind most of the time, but now I'm curious. 




> Christian Bale's Batman voice. Seriously? WHERE IS SHEEEE?! Whenever my girlfriend and I watch it, we crack up whenever he speaks as Batman.


Absolutely. I cannot agree more; that voice is ridiculous and is-- to me-- the biggest detractor to the film (it's so blatantly silly and out-of-place).



> Ledger's Performance makes the rest of the film seem drab. With such an incredible performance, it really knocks the consistancy of the film off balance, I find myself just waiting for the next Joker scene each time a Joker scene ends.


I'm not going to lie, his performance is what I like most about _The Dark Night_. For some reason, the well-done madman has a special place in my heart. (I don't follow actors and as such have no Heath Ledger fanaticism, for what it's worth.)



> The plot pace. Awful pacing....


Agreement. 

Though "awful" is a tad strong for me (but I'm no film connoisseur). 



> Maggie Gylenhaal. I'm sorry, but she is just not hot enough for the lead female! Shallow, I know....


This makes me sad, not for love/dislike of Gylenhaal, but the comment in general. 



> I've been back and forth between thinking this is a good film and thinking this is a bad film, but I just can't get over these shortcomings.


I'm not batshit insane for it, and I see where you're coming from. I wouldn't say it's a "bad" film, in general terms (i.e. there are some shitty-awful films), but I wouldn't dispute that it is overrated, though how much depends on one's opinion.


----------



## Randy (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Actually, Singer didn't direct the 3rd X-Men. He said "Let me finish Superman first, please" and the studio said "Fuck you, we'll get somebody else to do it." and what we got was the result of that decision: Fraiser as Beast.



Ah, I didn't realize that. Regardless, the storyline was pretty much already laid out and it was horrible.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> O
> 
> Christian Bale's Batman voice. Seriously? WHERE IS SHEEEE?! Whenever my girlfriend and I watch it, we crack up whenever he speaks as Batman.



Maybe I am totally off base with my understanding of Batman, but isn't the voice supposed to be ridiculous since it is a means of concealing who he is? Just a thought anyway.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> Maybe I am totally off base with my understanding of Batman, but isn't the voice supposed to be ridiculous since it is a means of concealing who he is? Just a thought anyway.



Christian Bale's interpretation of that though is very "interesting"


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Christian Bale's interpretation of that though is very "interesting"



Yeah but at least no one knows who he is.


----------



## MFB (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> VERY bad editing. It's not 10 minutes into the film where you hear see Christian Bale talking, and a second later he is still talking but it's cut to an angle where his mouth is not moving. For such a high budget movie, this really is not an excusable mistake.



I'd have to find this exact scene to care, but as from what I remember the editing was good aside from minor little things like that



> Christian Bale's Batman voice. Seriously? WHERE IS SHEEEE?! Whenever my girlfriend and I watch it, we crack up whenever he speaks as Batman.



This however is my main gripe with the movies, and one of the reasons I hate Batman Begins so much - it seems like they made him a little less harsh in TDK



> Ledger's Performance makes the rest of the film seem drab. With such an incredible performance, it really knocks the consistancy of the film off balance, I find myself just waiting for the next Joker scene each time a Joker scene ends.



I wouldn't go that far - yes, it was an incredible performance - but to say you'd want an entire movie of Joker scenes is a bit much in my opinion



> The plot pace. Awful pacing, they tried to cram too much into the 2 and a half hours. The film is a PG13/12A but I wonder how many 12/13 year old's actually understood what the fuck was going on? I had to watch it a second time to understand myself.



I think they did a fine job of making it in the 2 and a half hour time period  I mean, I'd rather them spend more time with Joker who's supposed to be the main villain and then have Dent as kind of a sub-villain and not get a TON of screen time. If they spent more time on the Two Face thing it would've killed it for me.



> Cliches. For such an 'original' film, it includes cliches such as 'which one to save?' twice throughout the film.



This adds a human like quality to Batman though, and it's the same for if they took say Lois Lane and ...someone else in a Superman movie (I hate Superman so I don't know who the equivelant of H.D. would be )



> Maggie Gylenhaal. I'm sorry, but she is just not hot enough for the lead female! Shallow, I know, but when compared to other films she seems an odd choice. She looks like a sad clown, it's like having The Joker's wife in the film too.



This one's accurate, I really hated when they presented fucking Maggie Gylenhaal as Rachel. Katie Holmes wasn't bad at least she looked decent but there's far better actresses out there (like say, oh, Jessica Alba )

I find this movie is definitely over-rated nowadays cause every friggin kid and their mother has seen it, and when you see it before you're old enough to appreciate art and you go around boasting it because it's cool and hip - you destroy the integrity of it, at least in my eyes

My English teacher wants to show it in class as a movie and I keep thinking "oh God no" cause like I said, everyone has seen it and it's really not that deep like he wants it to be


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

MFB said:


> I'd have to find this exact scene to care, but as from what I remember the editing was good aside from minor little things like that



If it's so minor then why couldn't they have corrected it before sending it out to screens?




MFB said:


> I wouldn't go that far - yes, it was an incredible performance - but to say you'd want an entire movie of Joker scenes is a bit much in my opinion



I didn't say that, what I would want though is the rest of the film to be as electrifying as Ledger's performance 



MFB said:


> I think they did a fine job of making it in the 2 and a half hour time period  I mean, I'd rather them spend more time with Joker who's supposed to be the main villain and then have Dent as kind of a sub-villain and not get a TON of screen time. If they spent more time on the Two Face thing it would've killed it for me.



Strokes/folks.



MFB said:


> This adds a human like quality to Batman though, and it's the same for if they took say Lois Lane and ...someone else in a Superman movie (I hate Superman so I don't know who the equivelant of H.D. would be )



I can't stomach cliches, whatever quality it brings to a film.




MFB said:


> This one's accurate, I really hated when they presented fucking Maggie Gylenhaal as Rachel. Katie Holmes wasn't bad at least she looked decent but there's far better actresses out there (like say, oh, Jessica Alba )



You agreed with this one? Really?


----------



## synrgy (Oct 9, 2009)

Randy said:


> Ah, I didn't realize that. Regardless, the storyline was pretty much already laid out and it was horrible.


 
It had it's moments. The scene where


Spoiler



Phoenix kills Xavier


 was crazy intense, and I thought they did it perfectly -- just as a for instance.

Then again, there was "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!!" 

Back OT:

I'm right there with you on Bale's interpretation of the Batman voice. I laugh my ass off every single time I hear the phrase in my head "I'M NOT WEARING HOCKY PADS!". It was pretty ridiculous. You mean to tell me that with all the toys Wayne Industries can produce, they can't just make some device that masks his regular speaking voice? 

While I'd also question the Gyllenhal casting, it was more or less moot point since the character is just a plot device anyway. She only has a hand full of lines in the movie. At least for ONCE they cast an actress in a Batman movie who can arguably ACT. Holmes? No, sir. Basinger? Not really, no. Silverstone? Needs it in the butt, but that's irrelevant. No. The only exception I can think of is Thurman, and the part they gave her to play was one of the weakest parts in one of the weakest movies of all time, so WTF? /mindless ramble

What bothers me more than anything is this: When I first heard about TDK, and I knew that Harvey Dent was going to be a major character, I kind of assumed that they would work up to the third movie which I would have expected to be Joker's Trial, which as some of you may remember from the comics is the trial during which the acid gets thrown on Harvey Dent's face, making him become Two Face. I don't know how much Ledger's death before release affected the plot as we saw it on screen, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the climax was sort of 'thrown together' at the last minute after Ledger croaked. Knowing Frank Miller was on board during production, I don't understand how the plot line got so convoluted and distorted during TDK.

In any case, this is all just nitpicky stuff. I still think the movie is pretty fucking awesome, all things considered. I mean, look at the barometer for comic book movies generally speaking. Would you not say Nolan's Batman films have certainly climbed way higher up the standards pile than say... Daredevil?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 9, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I'm right there with you on Bale's interpretation of the Batman voice. I laugh my ass off every single time I hear the phrase in my head "I'M NOT WEARING HOCKY PADS!". It was pretty ridiculous. You mean to tell me that with all the toys Wayne Industries can produce, they can't just make some device that masks his regular speaking voice?







synrgy said:


> While I'd also question the Gyllenhal casting, it was more or less moot point since the character is just a plot device anyway. She only has a hand full of lines in the movie.



I know dude, it was just my feeble attempt at trying to interject humour into an otherwise nitpicking, serious post 



synrgy said:


> I couldn't shake the feeling that the climax was sort of 'thrown together' at the last minute after Ledger croaked.







synrgy said:


> In any case, this is all just nitpicky stuff. I still think the movie is pretty fucking awesome, all things considered. I mean, look at the barometer for comic book movies generally speaking. Would you not say Nolan's Batman films have certainly climbed way higher up the standards pile than say... Daredevil?





Wait... I like Daredevil!

Man: "What do you want?"

Ben Affleck: "Justice!"


----------



## MFB (Oct 9, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> You agreed with this one? Really?



Damn you  I should say "I agree, get Maggie out of that role and get Jessica Alba into it instead!"



Scar Symmetry said:


> Wait... I like Daredevil!
> 
> Man: "What do you want?"
> 
> Ben Affleck: "Justice!"



Tell me you're joking. They aired Daredevil not too long ago on FX Movies and my god, the entire scenes where he's a child, especially when he fights the 3 bullies, are AWFUL


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Oct 9, 2009)

Daredevil was seriously one of the worst movies ever, which made it AWESOME.

I think the Dark Knight was a bad-fucking-ass movie. I was really stoned the first time I saw it, and it was a great time , but I've watched it multiple times since and thoroughly enjoyed it. The Joker was a fantastic role, and I always like Heath... too bad he left the stage.

Christian's gravel-y voice masking, while funny to poke fun at, wasn't really that ridiculous. He was just masking his voice so that people didn't know who he was. Plain and simple.

The only thing that REALLY pisses me off about that movie is when the Joker drops Rachel off the building - simply because Batman hits the car first, it negates the FACT that if you fall 40 fucking stories you die from hideous amounts of physical trauma, no matter if somebody is beneath you to hit the ground first.

...but overall, lets face it: this is a super hero movie, and with that in mind, it was very tastefully done.


----------



## st2012 (Oct 9, 2009)

Heath Ledger is the only reason I watch this movie. That and Bale's Batman voice.


----------



## vigil785 (Oct 9, 2009)

I thought it was highly overrated. All my friends bugged the shit out of me until I watched it. By the end of it I was thinking "ok so what?" It might have something to do with me not being obessed with batman like some people are. Actually now that I think about it, I dont really care to see any of the super hero movies that have been released. Give me a good action movie with normal looking people and im good to go.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 10, 2009)

synrgy said:


> At least for ONCE they cast an actress in a Batman movie who can arguably ACT. Holmes? No, sir. Basinger? Not really, no. Silverstone? Needs it in the butt, but that's irrelevant. No. The only exception I can think of is Thurman, and the part they gave her to play was one of the weakest parts in one of the weakest movies of all time, so WTF?



You forgot Michelle Pfeiffer, but she was basically in the same situation as Uma Thurman, although she does pull it off better.

As far as Christian Bale's gravelly voice, I didn't have a problem with it. He's not the death growler, but lets face it, what this movie tries to do is show Batman as a practical sort of hero. Employ high-tech when needed (like when they're trying to find the joker near the end), but if not, get the job done as simply as possible. Why use pointless tech if you can mask your true identity just by growling a bit? Plus, Bale is an English actor, trying to convincingly mask an accent (which he does quite well, actually, in all his movies) and growl at the same time cannot be the easiest thing to do.

Regarding the 'plot cliché' of having to make the choice twice, I don't think it was the choice that was the important part of the events, but the fact that the Joker lied in one instance and likely was lying in the other. To be specific, the Joker tells Batman that Rachel is in location A and Harvey dent in location B, when in fact Rachel is in location B. This illustrates that Batman's attempt to save Rachel actually killed her. It stands to reason then, that at the end of the movie, contrary to what the Joker said, the people on the boats actually had the detonators to the bombs on THEIR OWN boats. He was essentially trying to prove a point that their attempts to save themselves and the ones they love would be the very thing that dooms them, showing the pointless of their morality and their worthlessness in the Joker's world.

I do agree that the pacing seemed a bit rushed, some things could have been fleshed out a little more, but I still had no problem following what was going on.

As far as fight scenes go, looking at the fighting style and the camera work, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight seemed to suffer from opposite problems. Batman Begins had good fighting, bad camera. The Dark Knight had bad fighting (not really bad, but not as good), good camera.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 10, 2009)

I agree on a few of the points you started with, but since I don't pay enough attention to what people say I can't do anything about 'overrated' - I certainly liked it, but... for fuck's sake, it's the goddamn Batman.

After seeing Christian Bale in Public Enemies and this film, I get the impression that he didn't play Purvis or Batman/Wayne so much as play Christian Bale playing Purvis or Batman/Wayne. [EDITED because I'm a twit.]

Jeff


----------



## Uncle Remus (Oct 10, 2009)

RE the fightscenes: take a leaf out of the Arkham Asylum game Nolan?



(proof that the afforementioned would rule)


----------



## Drage (Oct 10, 2009)

Xaios said:


> You forgot Michelle Pfeiffer, but she was basically in the same situation as Uma Thurman, although she does pull it off better.
> 
> As far as Christian Bale's gravelly voice, I didn't have a problem with it. He's not the death growler, but lets face it, what this movie tries to do is show Batman as a practical sort of hero. Employ high-tech when needed (like when they're trying to find the joker near the end), but if not, get the job done as simply as possible. Why use pointless tech if you can mask your true identity just by growling a bit? Plus, Bale is an English actor, trying to convincingly mask an accent (which he does quite well, actually, in all his movies) and growl at the same time cannot be the easiest thing to do.
> 
> ...


 
You pretty much covered what I was going to post 

Who's stoked for Inception?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 10, 2009)

MFB said:


> Tell me you're joking. They aired Daredevil not too long ago on FX Movies and my god, the entire scenes where he's a child, especially when he fights the 3 bullies, are AWFUL



See this:



Adam Of Angels said:


> Daredevil was seriously one of the worst movies ever, which made it AWESOME.







Adam Of Angels said:


> The only thing that REALLY pisses me off about that movie is when the Joker drops Rachel off the building - simply because Batman hits the car first, it negates the FACT that if you fall 40 fucking stories you die from hideous amounts of physical trauma, no matter if somebody is beneath you to hit the ground first.



I know, what the fuck is up with that? Each time I watch that scene I'm thinking "naaaaaaaahhhh".



st2012 said:


> Heath Ledger is the only reason I watch this movie. That and Bale's Batman voice.



Same man.



vigil785 said:


> I thought it was highly overrated. All my friends bugged the shit out of me until I watched it. By the end of it I was thinking "ok so what?" It might have something to do with me not being obessed with batman like some people are. Actually now that I think about it, I dont really care to see any of the super hero movies that have been released. Give me a good action movie with normal looking people and im good to go.







Xaios said:


> Regarding the 'plot cliché' of having to make the choice twice, I don't think it was the choice that was the important part of the events, but the fact that the Joker lied in one instance and likely was lying in the other. To be specific, the Joker tells Batman that Rachel is in location A and Harvey dent in location B, when in fact Rachel is in location B. This illustrates that Batman's attempt to save Rachel actually killed her. It stands to reason then, that at the end of the movie, contrary to what the Joker said, the people on the boats actually had the detonators to the bombs on THEIR OWN boats.



I'm aware of all of that yes, but it's still a cliche whichever way you look at it. It's a plot device that's been used plenty of times before, even the 'swap' (which was _really_ clever, right?) and it just really didn't impress me at all.



JBroll said:


> After seeing Christian Bale in Public Enemies and this film, I get the impression that he didn't play Dillinger or Batman/Wayne so much as play Christian Bale playing Dillinger or Batman/Wayne.



I actually share this impression also.

Good discussion men.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 10, 2009)

Shit, fucked up the reference - he didn't play Dillinger, he played Purvis. Oops.

Jeff


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 10, 2009)

Its an awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome film.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Oct 10, 2009)

I think it was... ok. What I dislike most about it is that it really doesn´t feel like it´s in gotham city. It simply isn´t dark enough. Tim Burton captured this perfectly I think. I also think many of the scenes feels to much like... scenes. Like I can see the whole film-crew around the set in a way. Like when joker blew up the hospital, it didn´t feel fluently enough for me, just like jumping from one scene to another.

It was ok though. I liked batman begins better even though it was a bit long in the start. My favourite is still the Tim Burton one though. The car is cooler, the outfit is cooler (without the eyebrows and stuff) and batmans voice isn´t fucked up


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 10, 2009)

cataclysm_child said:


> I think it was... ok. What I dislike most about it is that it really doesn´t feel like it´s in gotham city. It simply isn´t dark enough. Tim Burton captured this perfectly I think. I also think many of the scenes feels to much like... scenes. Like I can see the whole film-crew around the set in a way. Like when joker blew up the hospital, it didn´t feel fluently enough for me, just like jumping from one scene to another.
> 
> It was ok though. I liked batman begins better even though it was a bit long in the start. My favourite is still the Tim Burton one though. The car is cooler, the outfit is cooler (without the eyebrows and stuff) and batmans voice isn´t fucked up


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 10, 2009)

cataclysm_child said:


> It was ok though. I liked batman begins better even though it was a bit long in the start. My favourite is still the Tim Burton one though. The car is cooler, the outfit is cooler (without the eyebrows and stuff) *and batmans voice isn´t fucked up*


----------



## liquidcow (Oct 10, 2009)

Can't be bothered to read through all the responses so I'll just respond to the first post. I agree that it is _somewhat _over-rated, but not as much as the OP I think. Despite its flaws, it's one of a small number of films that I find inherently re-watchable - I think I've seen it 3 times in the last year, which is a lot for me as I can usually never be bothered to re-watch films until at least a year later, so while you can pick it apart on a technical level, I simply found it pretty damned entertaining.

That said:



Scar Symmetry said:


> VERY bad editing. It's not 10 minutes into the film where you hear Christian Bale talking, and a second later he is still talking but it's cut to an angle where his mouth is not moving. For such a high budget movie, this really is not an excusable mistake.



I agree on the editing front but in a different way. Regarding that mistake, or that kind of mistake, far worse ones are made in just as high-budget/high-profile movies. As recently pointed out on the Kermode blog, it's often in musical films where they'll use shots of a musician playing because the facial expression is what they want, but the playing is completely out. Most people don't notice, and to be honest I didn't either with this film. What I think about the editing has more to do with the feel of the film. With this, and Batman Begins, a lot of the film feels like you're watching a trailer rather than the film itself. Especially when you are hearing someone talk in one location and watching something happening elsewhere - or especially in BB where it cuts to the two random guys explaining what will happen with the water mains or whatever it was, while Batman and Liam Neeson are fighting on the train. Felt a bit odd.




Scar Symmetry said:


> Ledger's Performance makes the rest of the film seem drab. With such an incredible performance, it really knocks the consistancy of the film off balance, I find myself just waiting for the next Joker scene each time a Joker scene ends.



I actually thought the performances are generally all good, and obviously if everyone was as over the top as Ledger then he wouldn't have stood out and therefore wouldn't have seemed so good. My main problem with the character of the Joker is that he has absolutely no background whatsoever. I know some people might argue that that's because he represents ultimate evil or whatever, but I just found it meant his character had no depth. He becomes a one dimensional cutout of a comic book villain, meaning Ledger can do whatever the hell he likes with the performance, meaning I find it less impressive. Ok, considering that, Ledger does do a good job of making it _seem_ like the Joker isn't a one-dimensional character, but when you look at it, there are really no insights to make into him.




Scar Symmetry said:


> The plot pace. Awful pacing, they tried to cram too much into the 2 and a half hours. The film is a PG13/12A but I wonder how many 12/13 year old's actually understood what the fuck was going on? I had to watch it a second time to understand myself.



Funny because someone was telling me his mum called it 'a kids film'. How many kids will understand all that about money laundering and international syndicates and so on? Yeh I felt they crammed in too much and didn't spend long enough on individual ideas, it was a bit like 'oh that's an interesting idea for a set-piece - oh you've moved on to something else....'




Scar Symmetry said:


> Cliches. For such an 'original' film, it includes cliches such as 'which one to save?' twice throughout the film.



I can forgive it that, I don't think there are many films that don't these days, and as my professor would say, 'a cliche is a cliche because it's a good idea'. It's how you use them that matters I think and I think it employed them well enough.




Scar Symmetry said:


> Maggie Gylenhaal. I'm sorry, but she is just not hot enough for the lead female! Shallow, I know, but when compared to other films she seems an odd choice. She looks like a sad clown, it's like having The Joker's wife in the film too.



See I thought the opposite, I was glad that they picked someone who wasn't the typical boring Hollywood-style-beautiful. To me she seems more real. But then that's personal taste I guess.

My other major complaint is that the final showdown between Batman and the Joker is a let down. I was expecting some massive action sequence and instead it was just a bit of a punch-up and a slightly lame one-liner.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 10, 2009)

liquidcow said:


> I agree on the editing front but in a different way. Regarding that mistake, or that kind of mistake, far worse ones are made in just as high-budget/high-profile movies. As recently pointed out on the Kermode blog, it's often in musical films where they'll use shots of a musician playing because the facial expression is what they want, but the playing is completely out. Most people don't notice, and to be honest I didn't either with this film. What I think about the editing has more to do with the feel of the film. With this, and Batman Begins, a lot of the film feels like you're watching a trailer rather than the film itself. Especially when you are hearing someone talk in one location and watching something happening elsewhere - or especially in BB where it cuts to the two random guys explaining what will happen with the water mains or whatever it was, while Batman and Liam Neeson are fighting on the train. Felt a bit odd.



I agree about the out of sync instrument playing - that bugs me, but I've seen so many films that I nitpick at anything I can... I'm nearly as bad with films as I am with music 



liquidcow said:


> I actually thought the performances are generally all good, and obviously if everyone was as over the top as Ledger then he wouldn't have stood out and therefore wouldn't have seemed so good. My main problem with the character of the Joker is that he has absolutely no background whatsoever. I know some people might argue that that's because he represents ultimate evil or whatever, but I just found it meant his character had no depth. He becomes a one dimensional cutout of a comic book villain, meaning Ledger can do whatever the hell he likes with the performance, meaning I find it less impressive. Ok, considering that, Ledger does do a good job of making it _seem_ like the Joker isn't a one-dimensional character, but when you look at it, there are really no insights to make into him.



I don't think better performances from the rest of the cast sans Aaron Eckhart would've made Ledger's performance seem worse. His performance is on a different level and wouldn't be comparable to the rest of the cast. There is a very, _very_ brief background on him at the beginning, but you're right, it would've been better if we were given more insight.



liquidcow said:


> Funny because someone was telling me his mum called it 'a kids film'. How many kids will understand all that about money laundering and international syndicates and so on? Yeh I felt they crammed in too much and didn't spend long enough on individual ideas, it was a bit like 'oh that's an interesting idea for a set-piece - oh you've moved on to something else....'



I know right? I still have to pay very close attention each time I watch it if I want to understand what the fuck is going on. Like I said, pacing was awful IMO.



liquidcow said:


> I can forgive it that, I don't think there are many films that don't these days, and as my professor would say, 'a cliche is a cliche because it's a good idea'. It's how you use them that matters I think and I think it employed them well enough.



Well, again, strokes/folks.



liquidcow said:


> See I thought the opposite, I was glad that they picked someone who wasn't the typical boring Hollywood-style-beautiful. To me she seems more real. But then that's personal taste I guess.



I did mention this earlier, but this was more of a humourous point than a serious one. Having said that, Maggie Gylenhaal =  ...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 10, 2009)

liquidcow said:


> C
> 
> I can forgive it that, I don't think there are many films that don't these days, and as my professor would say, 'a cliche is a cliche because it's a good idea'. It's how you use them that matters I think and I think it employed them well enough.
> 
> ...




It is a comic book movie, and comic books invented most of those cliches, so its to be expected. Besides, its something the joker would do.

I think shes beautiful, but as you say more real.

Joker doesn't have any martial arts training that I know of, so realistically he didn't stand a chance hand to hand  But yeah, was a bit quick.


----------



## Bobo (Oct 10, 2009)

Me and a friend were just talking about this (he's an extreme movie buff). Both of us think it's overrated, and that's my short reply. I'll keep that short, but acknowledge that there are some good views on both sides of this one  (<- that really doesn't look like an "agreement" smilie, does it?)


----------



## DevinShidaker (Oct 18, 2009)

I liked it a lot, I mean it's by no means a perfect film, and it's definitely overrated due to Heath Ledger's death in my opinion. The man was a good actor and it's a shame that he died, but it surely doesn't make the movie any better. Me and a buddy of mine used to troll TDK fans after the Oscars, using this little quote, worked every time...

"I don't think Keith Ledger deserved the oscar, I saw the black knight, and Jack Nicklaus was a way better Riddler. It just wasn't very good." people would get so angry over that, and it was obviously a joke.

Hopefully there is another movie, I'm all for sequels if they're good, hell even if they suck. My favorite movie series is Friday the 13th, and we're on freaking part 12 now


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 18, 2009)

I hope they do make another film and I hope they correct all the things they got wrong with The Dark Knight, because I think if The Dark Knight didn't have these faults it would be a fucking insane film.

Here's to hoping


----------



## Metaldave (Oct 20, 2009)

This is the biggest kicking I've seen for TDK. 

Personally, I think it was a fucking superb film! In saying that I'm a Batman nut in general though.

There are most certainly some dodgy edits, but I can forgive them for it. 

I think the whole voice argument is crap though because if he just spoke in his normal BW voice everyone would be saying "How do they not know it's BW?" (Since he's so high profile his voice would stand out a mile). 

Can't wait for the new one, I'd say Chris Nolan will say he's on board once Inception is done.


----------



## Rick (Oct 20, 2009)

envenomedcky said:


> "I don't think Keith Ledger deserved the oscar, I saw the black knight, and *Jack Nicklaus* was a way better Riddler. It just wasn't very good." people would get so angry over that, and it was obviously a joke.









Yeah, he was great as the Joker. 

Of course, you meant this guy, Jack Nicholson.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)

Metaldave said:


> I think the whole voice argument is crap though because if he just spoke in his normal BW voice everyone would be saying "How do they not know it's BW?" (Since he's so high profile his voice would stand out a mile).



Is it really though?

He could've picked a better voice


----------



## synrgy (Oct 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Is it really though?
> 
> He could've picked a better voice



Yeah, I don't think anybody is disputing the concept. It's just the delivery. Should it have been different than his 'bruce wayne' voice? Yes. Should it have sounded like he was trying to squeeze out a turd weighing 14 Kurics? Not really, no.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)




----------



## Justin Bailey (Oct 20, 2009)

fact is bale blows as batman, batman begins was horrible, and the only thing that made this one at all good was heath. and the only reason it did as well as it did was, unfortunately, because of his death.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 20, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> fact is bale blows as batman, batman begins was horrible, and the only thing that made this one at all good was heath. and the only reason it did as well as it did was, unfortunately, because of his death.



I disagree on all counts, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 20, 2009)

I definitely think Bale blows as Batman.


----------



## Metaldave (Oct 20, 2009)

Ah he doesn't blow.. (Well I don't think so  ) Sure he's BW more than he is Batman I'd say in the movies. Batman is the easy part to play, it's BW that he has to actually act for and I think he pulled that off well, it's pretty much his Patrick Bateman role.

I think the voice argument could go on forever though..


----------



## Randy (Oct 20, 2009)

Any voice that leaves a Batman costume (post 1992) that *isn't* Kevin Conroy's is a failure. Just putting that out there.


----------



## mlp187 (Oct 20, 2009)

I've gotta say, the soundtrack alone was worth it for me. I'm so influenced by the music that I can't even tell if I like the visual aspect of the movie. Seriously. 

In conclusion, I don't know if it's overrated!!!


----------



## Meldville (Oct 20, 2009)

Randy said:


> Any voice that leaves a Batman costume (post 1992) that *isn't* Kevin Conroy's is a failure. Just putting that out there.



Haha, you know, my roommate and I were talking about this the other day. I'm hoping that with the success of the Arkham Asylum game that we get a new animated movie/short series/etc with the voice cast of the original animated series. That show remains in my top five shows of all time


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Oct 20, 2009)

> What bothers me more than anything is this: When I first heard about TDK, and I knew that Harvey Dent was going to be a major character, I kind of assumed that they would work up to the third movie which I would have expected to be Joker's Trial, which as some of you may remember from the comics is the trial during which the acid gets thrown on Harvey Dent's face, making him become Two Face. I don't know how much Ledger's death before release affected the plot as we saw it on screen, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the climax was sort of 'thrown together' at the last minute after Ledger croaked. Knowing Frank Miller was on board during production, I don't understand how the plot line got so convoluted and distorted during TDK.




I read Batman comics as a kid, but don't remember much. I remember more about the animated series than the comic line. I do read Batman Graphic novels though, and can say that Dent becoming two face is a result of Maroni in The Long Halloween...



> _Mafia chieftain Sal "The Boss" Maroni is still the criminal who disfigures him with help from the corrupt Assistant District Attorney Adrian Fields (though in The Long Halloween, his name changed to Vernon Fields). Fields provides Maroni with the acid, concealed in an antacid bottle._



Two-Face - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






I would have liked to see this as the origin of Two Face in the film, especially there was a similar situation with Maroni on trial and the guy pulling the gun on Dent. I am not one to nitpick at not following comics to a T. Especially since stories, characters, and facts are always changed between writers and series anyhow.

I thought Two Face deserved a little more face time than what was given in the movies. Eckhart did an awesome job with the character. Joker will always be more important though, even though Two Face was a pretty big villian in some of the comics/graphic novels. 




Xaios said:


> Regarding the 'plot cliché' of having to make the choice twice, I don't think it was the choice that was the important part of the events, but the fact that the Joker lied in one instance and likely was lying in the other. To be specific, the Joker tells Batman that Rachel is in location A and Harvey dent in location B, when in fact Rachel is in location B. This illustrates that Batman's attempt to save Rachel actually killed her. It stands to reason then, that at the end of the movie, contrary to what the Joker said, the people on the boats actually had the detonators to the bombs on THEIR OWN boats. He was essentially trying to prove a point that their attempts to save themselves and the ones they love would be the very thing that dooms them, showing the pointless of their morality and their worthlessness in the Joker's world.



While your interpretation is interesting, I am pretty sure the point of that was Batman knew he was saving Dent and sacrificing Rachel because Dent was more important to Gotham city. Same reason that he tells Gordon to blame Dent/Two-Face's death on him. 


I really liked the movie, it was perfect, but I thought it was still great. Both the Joker and Two Face performances were awesome and I think they nailed the point of the Joker. He is about chaos and in many ways the opposite of Batman, as there is always this never ending battle between both characters. I thought the ending with Joker and Batman were suiting too. Batman is a superior fighter and the Joker is outmatched whenever directly facing him. Also, there is Batman's no kill policy and his capture of the Joker, which is true to the comics. Batman always has a never ending struggle with capturing the Joker and there were several instances in the Batman Universe where Batman wanted to kill the Joker to end it.

Some people complained about the editing, and how it seemed slow paced. This movie was different as it seemed slow paced. To me it seemed very comic book like, or graphic novel like as it was more of a fade/pause between chapters/issues. That's my interpretation of it, whether it was the intention or not, I am not certain.

I also like the use of the high tech Bat "sonar" vision and the scenes that portray Batman as a detective. This is very true to the character and I think they did an awesome job of bringing that out. 


I wonder if the bashers are Batman fans or are just judging the movie as a movie. Bottom line is the people behind such movies will never please everyone. Its just impossible as expectations are different across the board. If you are a Batman fanboy like myself, I think you really have to appreciate a lot of the references and subtleties in the Nolan films. If you are unfamiliar with a lot of the Batman world, these things could go un-noticed which I would imagine could decrease personal value of the films.

One thing I love about the Nolan films is the ode or at least reference to the comics. Batman Begins didn't follow anything perfectly, but it had many scenes that were ripped straight from the pages of a comic/graphic novel, just maybe in a slightly different context. The end of Batman Begins for example is pretty much a spitting image of the end of Batman: Year One. In addition to that, the scene where Batman calls upon the bats to evade police is taken right out of the Year One as well. You also have the Falconi crime family and many other references. The Dark Knight didn't seem to pull as much straight out of the comics, but it did a great job referencing them. Again, its hard to follow things so close when writers put their own twist on things. Ledger definitely read up on some Joker related Graphic novels to establish his portrayal of the character. 

Its not a perfect film by any means, but I think it does a great job of paying tribute to the comics while conforming to something that will appeal to mass audiences. Again, you won't please everybody. I certainly won't deny that Bale's Batman voice in the Dark Knight was over the top. When he held Detective Flass up in the alley during the rain and was screaming in his face, that was completely awesome. That was one of the shining moments where Nolan and Bale redefined the movie version of Batman into a darker, scarier thing. 

I can understand why some of you may not get or like some aspects of the movies, but most people dig it. Those who are Batman fans and have knowledge beyond TV/Movies are most definitely pleased and excited by all the subtle references, details, and nuances. It will never be perfect, but The Dark Knight is one of the best attempts so far.


----------



## TomAwesome (Oct 20, 2009)

Randy said:


> Any voice that leaves a Batman costume (post 1992) that *isn't* Kevin Conroy's is a failure. Just putting that out there.



Agreed, absolutely. Kevin Conroy is the only actor who I have liked both as Bruce and Batman. Everyone else I can think of has been a joke. Conroy is the only one who has gotten it right so far.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 20, 2009)

^ That's the guy from _Batman: The Animated Series_, right?

He was fucking awesome. When I saw _The Dark Knight_, I seriously wanted his voice to be like that.


----------



## TomAwesome (Oct 20, 2009)

TonalArchitect said:


> ^ That's the guy from _Batman: The Animated Series_, right?



Hells yeah it is. 

Y'know, if they redubbed Conroy's voice over Bale's acting, I think I'd like the movie a hell of a lot more.


----------



## Bungle (Oct 20, 2009)

Best picture of Nick Jackelson. Ever.







Oh and I thought DK was quite good, but I do agree with some of what the OP said, especially:

Christian Bale's Batman voice

and 

Maggie Gylenhaal. She has a buckled head. I didn't actually realise this until the scene where she meets the Joker, then all of sudden I thought "Wait a sec, her head is fucked". Having said that, she has more acting talent in her big toe than Katie Holmes ever will, I can see why she was cast in the role.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 29, 2010)

Did some searching around, apparently some people were thinking the same thing as me.

 Why &#8220;The Dark Knight&#8221; is overrated Insatiable

Is The Dark Knight over-rated? - Yahoo! Answers



I might watch this film again soon and see what I think.


----------



## Randy (Mar 29, 2010)

My friend had the same opinion of the film, but after the hype died down, he went back and watched this again. After a fresh breath, he ended up finding it to be a pretty solid movie.

I still haven't watched the movie, other than the first time in the theater... so I can't say how I feel beyond my original statements.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 29, 2010)

It's worth watching a good few times, in the same way as when you listen to a song repeatedly, you notice different things each time.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 29, 2010)

The fact that this film is being called overrated and Avatar still has positive reviews is simply disturbing.

Jeff


----------



## jaredowty (Mar 29, 2010)

JBroll said:


> The fact that this film is being called overrated and Avatar still has positive reviews is simply disturbing.
> 
> Jeff



Agreed. TDK certainly has its flaws, but is head and shoulders above Avatar and all your other generic action movies.

I think Bale is great as Batman, he really captures the anger and intensity of the character. But then again, I'm not as bothered by his voice as other people are.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 29, 2010)

I'll take Avatar over TDK any day, despite it's awful script.


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 29, 2010)

I think the bumpage here shows that the "TDK-is-overrated" argument has lasted longer than the "TDK-is-awesome".... leads one to conclude that now the movie is now underrated.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 29, 2010)

Demiurge said:


> I think the bumpage here shows that the "TDK-is-overrated" argument has lasted longer than the "TDK-is-awesome".... leads one to conclude that now the movie is now underrated.



What? I'm sure there are people praising this film elsewhere. Here however, I am _still_ baffled by the hype, I'm just glad there's people out there who agree.


----------



## Origin (Mar 29, 2010)

I think it's really overrated, yes it's good, but everyone shitting themselves about it and acting like they're dark and mysterious like the fuckin Joker or some shit in my town really pissed me off. They acted like pseudo-intellectuals, meanwhile they can't spell. And the whole nominating a dead actor for an Oscar thing is preposterous and insulting. How about it's awarded to someone who can appreciate it and keep making films with notoriety?


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 29, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> What? I'm sure there are people praising this film elsewhere. Here however, I am _still_ baffled by the hype, I'm just glad there's people out there who agree.



I was being facetious, but seriously I think that when the backlash against something is widespread enough or durable enough a tipping-point is reached where the net reception of something moves towards the averages. Lots of people thought the movie was a big deal and lots of people didn't think it was- somewhat cancels-out.

My own opinion about the movie: I really liked it. Most comic book-based movies have left me very cold (for instance, I used to be an X-Men fanatic and think that the movie adaptations are ridiculously dull) and TDK makes most of the other movies in the genre look like crap.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 29, 2010)

Now, don't forget what this same guy has had to say about other widely-discussed films...



Scar Symmetry said:


> Now it's become cool to hate Twilight, I think I'll be the first to say I like it, just to be different!



Jeff


----------



## Triple-J (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't believe TDK is overrated but I do believe it was overhyped and I think a part of that was due to the previous movie coming out with a minimum of press attention and actually turning out to be very good. 
Batman Begins was a huge shock as the public still had the memory of Schumacher's Bat-movies in their minds and expected yet another big screen version of the 60's Batman & Robin show wrapped up in modern clothing and Bat-nipples but what they got was something that was quite the opposite. 
Batman Begins was also one of the first comic book movies that didn't mutilate it's source material beyond recognition and avoided trying to sell you a fucking wanky soundtrack and/or toys via product placement and unlike most comic book films it didn't feel like yet another disposable movie created for idiots.

The quality of the original movie led to a lot of excitement over TDK which led to massive media hype and led to Warner Bros actually making an effort to (over?) publicise the movie and push it as a summer blockbuster type film which to me it isn't.

I feel that Heath winning an Oscar was deserved but it felt like that Oscar was awarded not for the performance but out of pity and it also overshadowed every other award the movie was nominated for, this to me was a real shame because the FX in it are cool and TDK is one of the few modern movies where the FX don't piss me off due to them looking poor.

As for Christian Bale I understand that these movies portray Batman earlier in his career as a younger and therefore angrier character but I really wish that they'd have made some kind of effort to clear up his voice during editing and I find it hard to believe that while it was edited at no point did _*anyone*_ say "hey guys why does Batman sound like Cookie Monster?" 
Yes Bale's Bruce Wayne is portrayed as a shallow dumb playboy who has more money than sense a male equivalent of "Paris Hilton" who is basically Patrick Bateman in all but name, but in the context of these films that's what Bruce is _*meant*_ to be because Bruce is the facade whereas Batman is his true personality and it's an aspect of the character that has always been there it's just that Nolan chose to draw it out more and utilise it. 

I've seen TDK many times now and I still love it and yes it does have it's flaws but it's worth remembering that all movies have their flaws or aspects of story/performance/fx/dialogue/etc that could be improved upon.


----------



## sami (Mar 30, 2010)

I liked TDK despite the hype it got. When the hospital blew up, only my wife and I were cracking up. I couldn't believe the rest of the audience didn't find that scene hilarious. I was like, "wtf is wrong with these people??"


----------



## Randy (Mar 30, 2010)

Well Dave, somewhere in Upstate NY there were a few people sharing a good chuckle about that along with you.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

Demiurge said:


> I was being facetious, but seriously I think that when the backlash against something is widespread enough or durable enough a tipping-point is reached where the net reception of something moves towards the averages. Lots of people thought the movie was a big deal and lots of people didn't think it was- somewhat cancels-out.
> 
> My own opinion about the movie: I really liked it. Most comic book-based movies have left me very cold (for instance, I used to be an X-Men fanatic and think that the movie adaptations are ridiculously dull) and TDK makes most of the other movies in the genre look like crap.



I had a feeling you were but I couldn't tell for sure so I went with my gut. What you are saying about TDK making other comic book movies look like crap is true, but I still prefer Iron Man.



JBroll said:


> Now, don't forget what this same guy has had to say about other widely-discussed films...
> 
> Jeff



You actually went and dug that out? Wow.

Yes, there was absolutely no joke intended in it and I was being fully serious...



sami said:


> I liked TDK despite the hype it got. When the hospital blew up, only my wife and I were cracking up. I couldn't believe the rest of the audience didn't find that scene hilarious. I was like, "wtf is wrong with these people??"



I have to admit, I did laugh at that bit and that bit is awesome.



Randy said:


> Well Dave, somewhere in Upstate NY there were a few people sharing a good chuckle about that along with you.



I'm cool about being the voice of dissent in my own thread, but it's good to know there are people out there who see what I see in it.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2010)

Dave, as soon as I remembered that you were the one who had something nice to say about that abomination I couldn't let it go. I had assumed that you were joking then, but I can never be too sure.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality to joke about liking it


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't think sexual identity has anything to do with why Twilight is an abomination, but if that's how you want to spin it...

Jeff


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

ok movie, and heath ledger was um ,the joker, wow. i didnt find anything in his joker that was sooo awesome, or his performance.


----------



## sami (Mar 30, 2010)

I think the Joker character in this movie has been the darkest Joker of all Batman movies. I thought just because of that, that it was cool.

I think it'd be the same reaction regardless if Heath Ledger acted or someone else.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

JBroll said:


> I don't think sexual identity has anything to do with why Twilight is an abomination, but if that's how you want to spin it...
> 
> Jeff



I'm assuming you've watched it to know that it's an abomination?

A clever guy like you wouldn't bash something without researching it first.


----------



## Randy (Mar 30, 2010)

jymellis said:


> i didnt find anything in his joker that was sooo awesome, or his performance.



It's funny that you say that. I really liked the way he played the Joker and the way his character was written myself, but my friend didn't. From his perspective, Heath Ledger's Joker just acted like a 'meth head' or something (licking his lips, the randomness, etc.) and he just couldn't find him creepy or imposing at all. I still enjoyed his performance, but I could definitely see my friend's point.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

im not putting him down as an actor. he was AWESOME in the patriot. but his joker was not nearly worthy of the mass of followers.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> It's funny that you say that. I really liked the way he played the Joker and the way his character was written myself, but my friend didn't. From his perspective, Heath Ledger's Joker just acted like a 'meth head' or something (licking his lips, the randomness, etc.) and he just couldn't find him creepy or imposing at all. I still enjoyed his performance, but I could definitely see my friend's point.


 

this is more how he struck me also. not really a tortured villain but more a twitchy little gimp. really reminded me of the helicopter pilot in the mad max films


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm assuming you've watched it to know that it's an abomination?
> 
> A clever guy like you wouldn't bash something without researching it first.



Any film based on a book that *isn't* directed by Stanley Kubrick is bounded above in quality by the book it was based on, and what I saw of the books indicates that they're even worse than the brief description 'masturbation fantasies of hideous Mormon who gets off to abstinent high-school-studying vampires who, despite aforementioned abstinence, still manage to be pedophiles somehow'. Of course, someone as wise and learned as yourself can fill in the details.

Jeff


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

JBroll said:


> Stanley Kubrick
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

JBroll said:


> Any film based on a book that *isn't* directed by Stanley Kubrick is bounded above in quality by the book it was based on, and what I saw of the books indicates that they're even worse than the brief description 'masturbation fantasies of hideous Mormon who gets off to abstinent high-school-studying vampires who, despite aforementioned abstinence, still manage to be pedophiles somehow'. Of course, someone as wise and learned as yourself can fill in the details.
> 
> Jeff



I can fill in the details sure, but it sounds like you've looked into it more than I have.

I'm disappointed that you haven't seen the films to be honest, an angry rant on Twilight by Jeff Broll would make for an amusing read I think.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2010)

Considering how close I came to an aneurysm over my Avatar rant, I think that would be an awful idea and it will never happen because I don't want to die thinking about poor cinema.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

That's a shame, I like angry Jeff.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2010)

I can't recall if I posted the Avatar mess here, but after reading that you'd probably reconsider.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

To return to the topic I thought Ledger was a fantastic Joker, perhaps moreso than Nicholson's Joker though I haven't thought about it long enough to confirm or deny that's what I truly think.

I did read this about Ledger though, a true method actor:



> "I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices &#8212; it was important to try to find a somewhat iconic voice and laugh. I ended up landing more in the realm of a psychopath &#8212; someone with very little to no conscience towards his acts"


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> To return to the topic I thought Ledger was a fantastic Joker, perhaps moreso than Nicholson's Joker though I haven't thought about it long enough to confirm or deny that's what I truly think.
> 
> I did read this about Ledger though, a true method actor:


 
i dont think you can compair the nicholson ledger jokers. they are to different of charcters even though the same. the way nicholson played him reminded me more of a cartoon than anything lol. i like them both dont get me wrong. and the movies also kicked mucho ass. i just think they are wayyyy over hyped


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 30, 2010)

I agree and I don't. They are both extremely different, but I'd say Ledger's was more intense and enthralling. For that reason I suggested he may have given a better performance.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 30, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I agree and I don't. They are both extremely different, but I'd say Ledger's was more intense and enthralling. For that reason I suggested he may have given a better performance.


----------



## Randy (Mar 30, 2010)

Heath Ledger's Joker = Loner

Jack Nicholson's Joker = Psychotic Crime Boss

Acting aside, more of the discussions I've seen about preference had this at their base. A lot of the bad-guys in Batman I would consider loners, but he's not one of them.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 30, 2010)

I think Ledger's Joker is brilliantly played and completely wasted on that movie.. the first time I saw it, the suspense was incredible.. but after that initial viewing I was less impressed each time I saw it. I started to think the plot was really weak with a lot of annoying plot holes


----------



## Trespass (Mar 30, 2010)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> It was good, I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't give it all the credit everyone else did.
> 
> To be perfectly honest though I've only ever watched 1 movie and thought it honestly bad and that was *'doubt'.* Never before have I sat through a movie and at the end said *what the fuck was that* before that movie. I'm usually content with most movies so my opinion Isn't very strong



The nun based movie? My God, that movie was brilliant. That last line in the garden in the snow... It just... Blew my mind. Chills. 

--

To add another dimension to this discussion: Movie was well done, one of the very few that have ever "blown my mind", pretty close to the "hype" surrounding it *;* Heath Ledger's performance wasn't that incredible.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 3, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> IIRC, Nolan has been quoted as saying he won't do another Batman film on grounds of integrity but I think if enough money is waved under his nose that integrity will dissolve.



How right I was


----------

