Written by [user id=105293] on 21.07.2010 at 19:03

I've liked all of Nolan's movies except for The Dark Knight.

Why The Dark Knight not ?

The idea of this movie is very interesting, but it's too long i get bored some in some parts, but still good movie.

Written by FOOCK Nam on 17.12.2010 at 17:48

Written by [user id=105293] on 21.07.2010 at 19:03

I've liked all of Nolan's movies except for The Dark Knight.

Why The Dark Knight not ?

There's a lot of reasons, but I will try to be summary, starting with the minor problems and working my way down to the bigger ones.

1. The atmosphere and the scenery (cityscape) are too different from Batman Begins. Gotham City is called GOTHam for a reason. I live in Estonia and even I could tell that TDK was filmed in Chicago. You may ask why this is such a problem, but Batman just doesn't fit into a generic city like Spider-Man does and in TDK, he felt completely out of place.

2. Batman is barely in the film. There's nothing wrong with having an ensemble cast of course, but when I go to see a Batman film, I want to see Batman, not the boring Gordon character or the completely underdeveloped Harvey Dent character. Bruce Wayne was a supporting character in the film and I didn't like that. I understand that this was Heath Ledger's shining moment (but let's face it, he was better in Brokeback Mountain), but the title of the film was "The Dark Knight", not "The Joker (Featuring the Dark Knight)"

3. Harvey Dent. I already said he was underdeveloped, but that's not even scratching the surface. Why did this film even need him? The central should have been the battle Batman and the Joker. Harvey Dent was boring in the first half and just absolutely annoying in the second half. It's impossible to take his character seriously, because we never learn why he became Gotham's "white knight" in the first place. With Batman we learned his entire backstory in Batman Begins (great film btw), but with Harvey we're just supposed to accept that he is awesome and don't ask why he became this way. Rather than give him meaningful and insightful scenes that tell us who he is and why he is willing to risk his life to fight the mob, the script just gives him a scene where he punches a man in the face in an "I am so badass" manner. There's also a mention of how he "Put every money laundrer in Gotham behind bars." Again, we're just supposed to take the film's word for it and accept that he is awesome. I didn't buy it. An then, at the end of the film he becomes a totally unbelievable villain, who's turn to the dark side is all the more meaningless because we didn't know why he was on the good side to begin with.

4. Writers creating their very own cliches "We all know you're Gotham's white knight", "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" "I believe in Harvey Dent!" "The night is darkest just before the dawm." "He is not our hero, he is a watchful protector, a silent guardian, a DARK KNIGHT". Vomit.

5. Batman Wannabes I liked the idea that people would follow his example and try to be superheroes too, I liked it a lot. But it just didn't make any sense for these guys to arrive at the scene before him. They didn't have Bruce's contacts or technology ("I don't wear hockey pads").

6. Ominpotence and omniscience as a plot convenience There are so many examples of how characters are able to do things just because the plot needs them to that I don't even know where to begin. Lau the Chinese busynessman is able to move all the money belonging to all the mobsters in Gotham without their knowledge or consent. How? The plot gives him permission. The Joker pulls off the most ridiculous escape ever, driving out the wall of the bank in a schoolbus and the driver on the next bus doesn't even slow down. Just another day behind the wheel for him. Let's also not forget Batman's comment about how "The Joker attracts paranoid schizophrenics."Apparently you just need to wear enough make up and then paranoid schizophrenic will trust you. "My momma always said you can't trust a woman, but you can trust a clown who blows people up." When Joker calls to the TV show to announce that he wants Carl Reese dead, his call goes through right away, even though there were probably tens of thousands of people trying to call the show at the same time. And so on and so on. You may say I am nitpicking here, but all these conveniences are part of a bigger problem - no one bothered to write the characters as actual supercriminals, supervillains or superheroes. When the plot needs them to pull off something crazy, they do it. No explanation (read: no writing) required. I think the fact that a police officer is put inside Joker's cell rather than outside also falls under the category of plot
conveniences. The plot needs him to get out of jail, so he does,even though it makes no sense.

7. The inconsistency of Bruce Wayne Batman's entire ideology in the first film was summed up with "As a symbol I can be incorruptable." Yet in The Dark Knight, he decides to give himself up to the Joker, even though the only way he could save Gotham was to continue to be Batman. It simply makes no sense to give himself up, because as Rachel rightfully points out, that would not stop The Joker from killing people. To which Bruce replies: "I have enough blood on my hands." Which, as anyone with half a brain can understand, is simply not true. His character changes just because that's what the plot needs, even though it doesn't make sense. Another example of inconsistency on his characters part is how he barely reacts to Rachel's death. Alfred doesn't react at all.

8. What kind of a film was The Dark Knight supposed to be? Was it a superhero film? No, most of the plot revolved around Harvey Dent and his (meaningless) quest to take down the mob, not around Batman. Was it a serious crime drama? No, look at the way Dent walks around in his half-burnt suit at the end of the film and is somehow able to talk normally even though half of his damn face is gone. The Dark Knight just seemed like a very confused film to me, it wasn't proud of what it's source material should have made it to be - a superhero film, the way Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins were proud, but the plot was by far too ridiculous for it to be a serious crime drama like L.A. Confidential too. I shiver with horror every time I recall the scene that truly made me hate this film. It's the scene where Gordon and the SWAT member are driving the van Dent is in and Joker's schizophrenic henchmen bring down the Helicopter. The SWAT guy watche the Helicopter crash and burn and he says: "OK, that's not good!" He might just as well have winked at the camera, smiled and said: "This is just a silly superhero film!" if he was going to react to people dying like that.

Except superhero films don't have to be silly, they can be good if they know what they are trying to be and if they are proud of what they are. Unlike The Dark Knight, which was in my opinion a horrible sequel to a great, deep and dark masterpiece, that was Nolan's Batman Begins.

Over and out.

A lot of ppl like that movie but somehow I was not that pleased after I saw it...

Written by [user id=105293] on 17.01.2011 at 22:41

Written by FOOCK Nam on 17.12.2010 at 17:48

Written by [user id=105293] on 21.07.2010 at 19:03

I've liked all of Nolan's movies except for The Dark Knight.

Why The Dark Knight not ?

There's a lot of reasons, but I will try to be summary, starting with the minor problems and working my way down to the bigger ones.

1. The atmosphere and the scenery (cityscape) are too different from Batman Begins. Gotham City is called GOTHam for a reason. I live in Estonia and even I could tell that TDK was filmed in Chicago. You may ask why this is such a problem, but Batman just doesn't fit into a generic city like Spider-Man does and in TDK, he felt completely out of place.

2. Batman is barely in the film. There's nothing wrong with having an ensemble cast of course, but when I go to see a Batman film, I want to see Batman, not the boring Gordon character or the completely underdeveloped Harvey Dent character. Bruce Wayne was a supporting character in the film and I didn't like that. I understand that this was Heath Ledger's shining moment (but let's face it, he was better in Brokeback Mountain), but the title of the film was "The Dark Knight", not "The Joker (Featuring the Dark Knight)"

3. Harvey Dent. I already said he was underdeveloped, but that's not even scratching the surface. Why did this film even need him? The central should have been the battle Batman and the Joker. Harvey Dent was boring in the first half and just absolutely annoying in the second half. It's impossible to take his character seriously, because we never learn why he became Gotham's "white knight" in the first place. With Batman we learned his entire backstory in Batman Begins (great film btw), but with Harvey we're just supposed to accept that he is awesome and don't ask why he became this way. Rather than give him meaningful and insightful scenes that tell us who he is and why he is willing to risk his life to fight the mob, the script just gives him a scene where he punches a man in the face in an "I am so badass" manner. There's also a mention of how he "Put every money laundrer in Gotham behind bars." Again, we're just supposed to take the film's word for it and accept that he is awesome. I didn't buy it. An then, at the end of the film he becomes a totally unbelievable villain, who's turn to the dark side is all the more meaningless because we didn't know why he was on the good side to begin with.

4. Writers creating their very own cliches "We all know you're Gotham's white knight", "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" "I believe in Harvey Dent!" "The night is darkest just before the dawm." "He is not our hero, he is a watchful protector, a silent guardian, a DARK KNIGHT". Vomit.

5. Batman Wannabes I liked the idea that people would follow his example and try to be superheroes too, I liked it a lot. But it just didn't make any sense for these guys to arrive at the scene before him. They didn't have Bruce's contacts or technology ("I don't wear hockey pads").

6. Ominpotence and omniscience as a plot convenience There are so many examples of how characters are able to do things just because the plot needs them to that I don't even know where to begin. Lau the Chinese busynessman is able to move all the money belonging to all the mobsters in Gotham without their knowledge or consent. How? The plot gives him permission. The Joker pulls off the most ridiculous escape ever, driving out the wall of the bank in a schoolbus and the driver on the next bus doesn't even slow down. Just another day behind the wheel for him. Let's also not forget Batman's comment about how "The Joker attracts paranoid schizophrenics."Apparently you just need to wear enough make up and then paranoid schizophrenic will trust you. "My momma always said you can't trust a woman, but you can trust a clown who blows people up." When Joker calls to the TV show to announce that he wants Carl Reese dead, his call goes through right away, even though there were probably tens of thousands of people trying to call the show at the same time. And so on and so on. You may say I am nitpicking here, but all these conveniences are part of a bigger problem - no one bothered to write the characters as actual supercriminals, supervillains or superheroes. When the plot needs them to pull off something crazy, they do it. No explanation (read: no writing) required. I think the fact that a police officer is put inside Joker's cell rather than outside also falls under the category of plot
conveniences. The plot needs him to get out of jail, so he does,even though it makes no sense.

7. The inconsistency of Bruce Wayne Batman's entire ideology in the first film was summed up with "As a symbol I can be incorruptable." Yet in The Dark Knight, he decides to give himself up to the Joker, even though the only way he could save Gotham was to continue to be Batman. It simply makes no sense to give himself up, because as Rachel rightfully points out, that would not stop The Joker from killing people. To which Bruce replies: "I have enough blood on my hands." Which, as anyone with half a brain can understand, is simply not true. His character changes just because that's what the plot needs, even though it doesn't make sense. Another example of inconsistency on his characters part is how he barely reacts to Rachel's death. Alfred doesn't react at all.

8. What kind of a film was The Dark Knight supposed to be? Was it a superhero film? No, most of the plot revolved around Harvey Dent and his (meaningless) quest to take down the mob, not around Batman. Was it a serious crime drama? No, look at the way Dent walks around in his half-burnt suit at the end of the film and is somehow able to talk normally even though half of his damn face is gone. The Dark Knight just seemed like a very confused film to me, it wasn't proud of what it's source material should have made it to be - a superhero film, the way Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins were proud, but the plot was by far too ridiculous for it to be a serious crime drama like L.A. Confidential too. I shiver with horror every time I recall the scene that truly made me hate this film. It's the scene where Gordon and the SWAT member are driving the van Dent is in and Joker's schizophrenic henchmen bring down the Helicopter. The SWAT guy watche the Helicopter crash and burn and he says: "OK, that's not good!" He might just as well have winked at the camera, smiled and said: "This is just a silly superhero film!" if he was going to react to people dying like that.

Except superhero films don't have to be silly, they can be good if they know what they are trying to be and if they are proud of what they are. Unlike The Dark Knight, which was in my opinion a horrible sequel to a great, deep and dark masterpiece, that was Nolan's Batman Begins.

Over and out.

I saw the majority of those faults too, but I still enjoyed it.

Written by whatsacow on 15.02.2011 at 21:59

I saw the majority of those faults too, but I still enjoyed it.

I enjoy some parts of The Dark Knight too, more specifically the Joker scenes. Nothing wrong with liking the film.

Ledger's rendition of the Joker was nothing more than an overacted Johnny Depp impersonation (in fact it's even worse than Depp's acting in Sleepy Hollow). His performance is more overrated than the film itself. When a performer becomes inseparable from his or her real self they've failed and not once did I see "The Joker" onscreen, only Ledger hamming it up and trying too hard, big style. A problem with a lot of actors but I can't think of a more prime example.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.02.2011 at 22:44

Ledger's rendition of the Joker was nothing more than an overacted Johnny Depp impersonation (in fact it's even worse than Depp's acting in Sleepy Hollow). His performance is more overrated than the film itself. When a performer becomes inseparable from his or her real self they've failed and not once did I see "The Joker" onscreen, only Ledger hamming it up and trying too hard, big style. A problem with a lot of actors but I can't think of a more prime example.

Personally, I think it was the writing for the character, not so much the actor that made the joker great. Because Heath wasn't that great. I look at his character, I like his humour, and his manicness, but thats it.

Written by whatsacow on 16.02.2011 at 12:19

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.02.2011 at 22:44

Ledger's rendition of the Joker was nothing more than an overacted Johnny Depp impersonation (in fact it's even worse than Depp's acting in Sleepy Hollow). His performance is more overrated than the film itself. When a performer becomes inseparable from his or her real self they've failed and not once did I see "The Joker" onscreen, only Ledger hamming it up and trying too hard, big style. A problem with a lot of actors but I can't think of a more prime example.

Personally, I think it was the writing for the character, not so much the actor that made the joker great. Because Heath wasn't that great. I look at his character, I like his humour, and his manicness, but thats it.

I liked his dialogue, that's why he was an entertaining character. "And I thought my jokes were bad." "As for the televisions so-called plan, Batman has no jurisdiction."

He was kind of like Kefka in that way, except Kefka is cooler.

EDIT: Kefka is WAY cooler.

Written by [user id=105293] on 16.02.2011 at 13:36

Written by whatsacow on 16.02.2011 at 12:19

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.02.2011 at 22:44

Ledger's rendition of the Joker was nothing more than an overacted Johnny Depp impersonation (in fact it's even worse than Depp's acting in Sleepy Hollow). His performance is more overrated than the film itself. When a performer becomes inseparable from his or her real self they've failed and not once did I see "The Joker" onscreen, only Ledger hamming it up and trying too hard, big style. A problem with a lot of actors but I can't think of a more prime example.

Personally, I think it was the writing for the character, not so much the actor that made the joker great. Because Heath wasn't that great. I look at his character, I like his humour, and his manicness, but thats it.

I liked his dialogue, that's why he was an entertaining character. "And I thought my jokes were bad." "As for the televisions so-called plan, Batman has no jurisdiction."

He was kind of like Kefka in that way, except Kefka is cooler.

EDIT: Kefka is WAY cooler.

Kefka was indeed very cool, a true maniacal and unhinged individual. I think Luca Blight (of Suikoden 2) is the only video game baddie to have him beat in terms of ruthless insanity.

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.02.2011 at 15:24

Kefka was indeed very cool, a true maniacal and unhinged individual. I think Luca Blight (of Suikoden 2) is the only video game baddie to have him beat in terms of ruthless insanity.

I just wish there'd been a better backstory to his insanity than having snapped after the magiteck infusion, but Kefka still pretty much rules.

Written by Candlemass on 30.07.2010 at 01:13

Entertaining yet disturbing film.
Do you think the TOTAM spins or falls down eventually?

I agree. I love that movie though it's a bit disturbing. That spinning top/totem confused me too.