One Man's Admission: I Didn't Like The Dark Knight
I know this may be almost as sacrilegious as saying I don't support the troops... but I can't hold it in any longer. Here goes:
I didn't like The Dark Knight.
Perhaps my opinion would be different if reviews for the movie hadn't been so off the charts. But IMDB users have rated The Dark Knight as the best film... of all-time!
I don't even think it's the best film in the Batman franchise, but that's as much as a compliment to Batman Begins as a condemnation of The Dark Knight.
Anyway, here are my reasons for thinking The Dark Knight is more overrated than The MacBook Air...
- Bruce Wayne/Batman is the least interesting character in the movie.
The Joker - both as a character and as a performance by Heath Ledger - is mesmerizing. Any time he isn't on screen, the movie slows to a halt. Harvey Dent is layered, a seemingly glory-filled attention hog and obstacle in the way of Bruce and Rachel's love... who turns out to truly have a heart of gold, only to see it corrupted by the death of his loved one and a barrel of acid.
Jim Gordon is torn apart by his crime-ridden city. You can see the pain on his face in every scene. Heck, even Alfred is interesting. He serves as Batman's moral compass in the movie.
But the Caped Crusader himself is shoved into the background, while these other characters drive the story along. We saw how Bruce became Batman in the prior film, and now it appears as though he's just sitting back, waiting for others to give him a purpose. Which would be okay, except...
- The premise of the movie is based on Batman's unique brand of heroism.
I loved the ending. I thought Gordon's closing speech and the idea of Batman serving as the hero Gotham deserves - by actually serving as the target of their unified disdain for evil - was exceptional. But the rest of the film didn't do this concept justice.
Again, for a majority of the two and a half hours, Batman wasn't even a secondary character. The people on the ferry were heroes for not blowing each other up; Alfred was the one who had to plead with Bruce to "endure," to "be the outcast... [to] make the choice that no one else will face: the right choice."
How can a super hero movie succeed if the man in the mask scarcely acts heroic until the closing scene? I left the theater thinking that Gotham, and therefore the film, doesn't need Batman. Seems like a problem.
- There were too many climaxes.
This is good in bed, bad on screen.
First, The Joker was apprehended in a drawn-out chase scene. Then, he escaped and Rachel and Dent were faced with life-threatening situations against a ticking clock.
Then, a hospital blew up. Then, two ferries almost suffered the same fate as Batman and The Joker wrestled for control of the city.
I mean, I'm glad the citizens on the boats didn't kill one another - but I would have understood if they'd have chosen death over yet another supposedly heart-racing scene. Movies are only permitted so many climactic moments without them becoming, well, anti-climactic.
I'm gonna see The Dark Knight again. Heath Ledger's performance alone will inspire at least a second viewing. But I can't shake the feeling that the film could have arrived at its exciting conclusion far sooner, while emphasizing the premise of the natural human condition - good or evil? - in a more clear cut way.
Agree? Disagree? All feedback is welcome!
July 24th, 2008 11:45 PM
I agree with you. This movie was a good movie but had insane expectations and hype. Unfortunately it could not live up to that hype in my opinion but overall the movie was just not as good as Batman Begins. Ledger was great in the movie but Batman/Bale was the 3rd most important character in the movie behind Joker and Dent. I thought Eckhart and Ledger were incredible in those roles but it is a Batman franchise, therefore you think he would be the focus or at least shared focus with one villain.
July 25th, 2008 3:18 PM
i thought the reason he was so torn because he didnt want to be heroic anymore, he was lookign for dent to take over as gotham crimefighter so that he could live his life and be with rachel. did i misunderstand but i thought that was the whole point of the movie
July 25th, 2008 3:45 PM
Just a few small details that I think you might have over looked. #1, Dent was burned by gasoline not acid. The gas ignited during the explosion that could have taken his life. #2, And this is a BIG #2, there WILL be another batman, meaning this movie was just(like any other trilogy)a part of the story. But in 4 yrs no ones gonna care. So keep going mr.movie critic, like everyone else(and myself)ur opinion means jack, and thats a fact.
July 25th, 2008 11:17 PM
In this movie isn't batman supposed to be the behind the curtains kind of hero anyway? A slight hint given from the title of the movie, and how the name Batman isn't even used in the title, hmmm. Also it shows the grittiness of the city, Gotham is run by the politicians, controlled by chaos from the villain. I feel that having Batman such a limited character help build a better character to the city, where i read somewhere that this is what the movie intended, to characterize the city from the politicians and villains side.
Its good to see a negative viewer though
July 26th, 2008 1:29 AM
I think that you have a well thought out argument. I don't think you took into consideration Batman as "the new hero" along with his Batman's newly developed job in fighting crime. He's not the veteran Batman that we have seen in a lot of the other films. What we saw was Bruce still transitioning from vigilante Batman to the Dark Knight. I can see your point in Batman faded out into a lot of the other characters,and him not really standing out, but that Batman is still working on his craft as a crime fighting hero. I think it added a good realistic element that no other Batman movie has been able to do. You really should see Gotham Knight and you will appreciate the movie more. I had the opportunity to see the animated series before the movie, so when I saw the movie I was under the assumption that he was still doing some trial and error and polishing his craft.
July 27th, 2008 1:20 PM
I disagree with your harsh judgment of the film. You should know never to pay too much attention to the hype. And as for Batman fading into the background... well, isn't that what he was trained for?
July 28th, 2008 6:19 AM
Frankly, I don't care what you think of the film. But give a damn spoiler alert, will you? I had to stop reading.
July 28th, 2008 11:05 PM
batman begins was about bruce waynes trasition from naive vengeful adolescent into something more, a path he is forced to choose when weighed against the actions of the other characters. scarecrow and ras al ghul were used to mirror elements of the emerging batman, the employment of fear and a rigid morality structure respectively.the villains are simply a further corruption of batmans own drives.
nolan does the same with the dark knight. the joker is batmans intellectual equal without any restraint and two face shows us a physical representation of bruce waynes internal damage. the fact that the "baddies" dominate the second movie illustrates how much more crucial the choices bruce wayne makes will be and how these choices, again weighed against the actions of the antagonists take batman one step closer to superhero adulthood.
July 29th, 2008 6:15 AM
I have literally been counting the days since 05 for this movie to come out, since it was still being called "Batman Begins 2/Batman Begins Sequal". Let me start out with Bale; his portrayal of Batman, as you pointed out, was as a secondary/tertiary character. Very disappointing. They played up to the fact that Batman was going to be tested to the brink of him cracking, but it never happened. Some posters are pointing out the fact that he's still a newbie "super-hero", which is irrelevant; a good story could still have come from all of this with Batman still being the main focus. Bad writing (or possibly editing) on the Nolan brothers part. They tried too hard to squeeze in detail and it ended up being a cock-tease for 2 1/2 hours. This movie should have been 3-4 hours long. Some people could get lost in all the commotion (I have a good eye and memory so I didn't).
Oh, and screw all you Nolan nutt-huggers, I like his movies (outside of Batman) but some of you need to stop pretending he's god. His Batman movies are far from perfect, but still very good.
As for Heath Ledger, a lot of people were saying negative things about him when he was cast as the Joker. I knew he would not disappoint and I was very outspoken to his critics saying he would be great. I knew exactly how he would portrait the Joker but as reviews started coming out they began to over-hype his performance as "terrifying" and what not. I knew he would not disappoint but like a moron I got caught up in the hype and was pretty disappointed that he didn't scare me in the least. After watching the movie 2-4 times, I was able to put the hype aside and remember my initial reaction to Ledger being cast and was once again able to appreciate his performance as much as I knew I would. On a side note, there was not enough Joker in the movie, not enough killing and violence, blood and guts, and not enough views into his psyche. Heath Ledger had Joker down to a "T" but all this censorship was a disservice to his great performance.
Eckart's performance completely stole the show. He played Two-Face better than anybody could have imagined. His look was superb and his acting was just damn great. He was much more imposing than the Joker was hyped to be.
I give this movie 7.5/10. I've been waiting for this movie for over a year unlike most of these bandwagon jumpers who are claiming this is the greatest movie they've ever seen, and I recommend it to everyone but it is far from perfect.
And for all you bandwagon jumping, wannabe Batman fans who are going to try and make your smart-ass remarks regarding my post, I want to give a F@$% YOU in advance because you don't know S$%@ about Batman or movies in general.
P.S. If you're a casual fan, then no offense to you. If you're one of these nutt-hugging losers, then screw you.
July 29th, 2008 11:01 AM
I completely disagree with you. Your obviously one of those people who love to hear about the hype then try and prove them wrong because there was that build up to it. This film has completely re-defined once again the story of Batman, and I hope that you read the comic books and your not just a movie buff because if you are then please do another review as this is well off! It follows pretty much every detail that the comic book offers. Batman is not meant to be such a major role while the Joker is around because the Joker is such a potent character he thrives on the fact Batman cannot cope with what he does and how he thinks. So Batman HAS to think about everything he has become and HAS to re-establish what he fights for while others around him try to bring the Joker down. Batman realises that he cannot do this alone while figuring maybe Batman is not what BRUCE and Gotham needs. The movie does this brilliantly. So your off by with what you say about Batman being in the background for one! It is an awesome film and by far the best of the franchise, so get your facts straight before reviewing because you obviously don't know your stuff!
July 29th, 2008 4:50 PM
hm. I kind of agree, but I still believe it lived up to it's name, because the whole point of the movie was for the Joker to psychologically attack him while Dent was coming on the scene; giving the illusion that Batman was useless to Gotham and he could do nothing about it. Batman isn't one of those superheros that graces the forefront anyways so, I`m not sure if I agree with you there. I give Christian Bale props. He's the best Batman ever.. & Heath was obviously absolutely amazing. I applaud them both.
I honestly believe that it is the best in the franchise so far, and I equally enjoy Batman begins. Don't get me wrong, it was not a perfect movie, but it was still great. I'm going to see it again real soon.
Your opinion however, is well noted.
August 2nd, 2008 4:00 PM
To all the Frazer Cranes that have analyzed the crap out of super hero movie. it did what it was supposed to.
Improve on the issues with batman begins.
He gave you a unbelivable world and made you think it was really happening. This movie was hyped by the death of heath ledger and comic book fans out their. batman was part of a team of 3 individual against the MOB please watch the godfather series and compare.
AND FOR THOSE ANALYSERS YOU WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED.
I BET YOU THOUGHT SCHINDLERS LIST WAS BAD.
August 3rd, 2008 3:23 AM
Well it seems as though the critics of this movie fell for the hype and created a storyline in their head of how this movie was going play out. When it didn't pan out, they were like "Oh, what the hell happened?" Therefore, most of those people missed the point of the movie. Maybe 5% of these critiques were worth reading, negative post included. As for the other 95%, it was pretty much like getting middle school woodworking teachers to figure out what went wrong with the Space Shuttle Challenger. I mean, come on, people expected this movie to be all about batman. Its as if people have never watched a movie with an antagonist as the main character. Also, most people need to realize this is a series. This isn't the whole batman movie in a single movie. Oh yeah, read the comics, before criticize this movie, you just might find you don't know shit.
August 3rd, 2008 6:22 AM
Seems a ton of people missed the point of the movie. I guess none of you had enough sense in your heads to realize by the end of the film that the entire movie was a fight over Harvey "Two-Face" Dent. Nobody caught on to the fact that in the end, Gotham's "white knight" ended up representing the two moralities of the other 2 main characters. The twisted, evil psyche of the Joker and the noble, righteous Batman. And saying Bales performance was underwhelming? Were any of you watching the same movie I saw? As with Batman Begins, Bale was phenomenal at playing the dual personalities the character entails. Yes Ledger gave an Oscar-worthy performance as the Crown Prince of Thieves, but what the hell is with everyone saying that Bale didn't deliver? I guess you all missed the conversation between Batman and Joker in the interrogation room where Batman is pushed to the edge of breaking his one rule. Or maybe you missed the emotional scene between Bale and Micheal Caine just after the two buildings are destroyed where Wayne questions whether or not to continue on as the hero Gotham needs. Or maybe you also missed the conversation toward the end between Batman, Gordon, and Dent. Whatever it was, if you don't think Bale delivered, you're either deaf, dumb, and blind or you just missed the point completely. And i have to agree with a previous comment, if you know ANYTHING at all about the Batman comics, the characters involved, and the lore behind it all, you'd understand how spot on The Dark Knight is. Hell, you don't even have to know anything about the comics actually. All you need is half a brain to notice the social, political, and psychological commentary the film presents amidst all the amazing visual brovado to understand that it is a masterpiece and one of the best pieces of film-making created in the last 20 years. Apparently alot of the intensity of certain scenes was lost on some of you or you simply weren't paying attention. This is what happens when a film-maker is actually true to the source material, it becomes too smart of a film for the general public to enjoy and understand. Sorry to those of you that were expecting 2-1/2 hours of Ledgers amazing portrayal of the Joker because of the hype sorrounding it that you couldn't bring yourselves to actually see what was happening throughout the rest of the film. Its actually quite sad really.
August 3rd, 2008 6:30 AM
Not that many people will read this but i loved your analogy. I was also dissapointed because of all the hype and the movie not living up to its expectations but none of my friends seemed to get it. My main criticism is also your first point - Batman is ridiculously boring! Joker was fantastic and 2face was pretty good but Batman was ****.
August 3rd, 2008 7:09 AM
well i think that this movie has alot more of a plot than others . which is a good thing. One plot that was a big one that none saw probably was love, which bruce had for rachel. this movie was questioning that if gotham needed a hero. and it does. but to bruce his love for rachel was worth more than a mask. He saw that maybe harvey was the hero gotham's needed. And he could finaly be with rachel. you are right in the beginning of the movie it isnt so much about batman but about the joker. but the joker was being introduced. but towards the end you see batman take the lead again and thats what made it so great. it wasn't justs batman's life that the story was about but waynes too and his love.
August 4th, 2008 1:04 PM
Totally agree... in fact i found this article by typing in "didnt like the dark knight" to a search engine because i was feeling so alone in my not liking the film. I love Christian Bale, love Batman, should love the two of them together.. but it fell flat.
August 6th, 2008 2:17 PM
I agree, and thought I would include some words from my most recent blog.
Considering the tag on my Xterra, and the plethora of Batman stuff adorning my whole house...you are expecting this to be a long glowing review. I expected to have a long glowing review, but after trying my damnest to fall in love with the beautiful noir essence of the film--I am admiting that I don't care for it.
It feels a little like the emperor's new clothes. Heath ledger is dead, sadly, and while he did an outstanding job...I didn't feel it as monumental as it has been so proclaimed.
Christopher Nolan, and Bale said that one of the many differences between his films, and the earlier interpretations was the focus on Batman, and Bruce Wayne. Just like classic sequels, this focused mainly on the villians. I wanted to be right there along with Bruce on this, and a rather gaunt, pallid Christian Bale felt like a brief fill-in...almost as if he stopped by set in the midst of filming several other things, just to make a cameo. Part of me wonders if Nolan isn't trying to separate himself so much from the other interpretations that he has lost something in the process.
I bought the soundtrack, and it is haunting. Harvey dent was beautifully portrayed by Aaron Eckhart...but still something felt hollow between the forced love triangle of Bruce, Harvey, and Rachel--who Nolan was predictably going to kill off after much criticism in Begins. Batman tears off after Rachel, only to have been given the wrong address, yet this seems to go without mention, and Bruce's reaction lacked much emotion or even a good dose of shock...he seemed nearly unaffected.
From the first minute to the last, there are break neck action scenes all too common for superhero films. It made records at the box office, and was obviously a hit---so why do I feel so strongly about this? Perhaps I wanted something more, something deeper. (This was deeper you're shouting!), but in my mind as an author, there were moments that could have been explored that weren't, and scenes that were drawn out for the need to see as much Heath ledger as possible. I would guess that they re-edited the film shortly after ledger's untimely end, though I could be wrong.
It felt disconnected at times, and wayward. The lack of Wayne Manor (throw back to the 70's Wayne penthouse of the comics), was unsettling in conjuction with all of the other ordinary settings. Its called Gotham city for a reason, and it isn't average or ordinary. I was excited in Begins to hear a child crying in the background of Gordon's apartment for obvious reasons...Barbara had her moment...and in Dark Knight it becomes clear that the child was an older son who I don't recall Gordon having. I probably just glossed over him in the comics, but I felt cheated somehow. As a fan for years, I felt he had paid attention and let us in on something yet, it was nothing but the tears of an unknown, like the lack of real grit to Rachel Dawes' history.
The movie was not touching to me, not extraordinary, and certainly not oscar worthy. Gotham city was replaced with the sameness of every other city in America. Depth to Bruce's past was replaced with a focus on new gadgets, and fight scenes in other countries that were typical of any dramatic film made in the last 15 years. The pacing, and choregraphy matched any standard action movie.
It felt lost...and after it was over I remained unattached to even Batman, who has been a staple in my world for years. The Dark Knight was a brilliant title, but the plot, and character development left a little to be desired.
Will I still buy it? Sure. Will I watch it a ridiculous amount of times in the next year? Probably. Will I sit for just a moment after watching it the 100th time and feel a part of that world...no. Sadly, no. I want to---and I'll likely still try to, and maybe I will change my mind. I hope so desperately.
August 6th, 2008 5:25 PM
Just as a side note to all those taking this personally...a review is an opinion, and we are all entitled to an opinion. The 'get your facts straight' and 'you don't know shit' comments show nothing but unbridled arrogance, and immaturity. As far as the 'true to the source material' quip...Rachel didn't exist until Nolan used some creative liberty, so don't give us that bullshit. This unique, and fresh spin on Batman was true in some ways to Kane's vision, and drastically different in others. I personally didn't care for the film, but it was worth watching. Just because I don't agree with the general public doesn't make me deaf, dumb, blind, or less of a fan.