Suggestions for Inclusion

Here is where to submit suggestions for adding to this site. Suggestions can be submitted as comments.

Comments are archived as needed. Archive pages:

230 Responses to “Suggestions for Inclusion”

  1. Nathan Fisher, on July 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Said:

    I wrote a blogpost on this right after seeing the movie, and people automatically assume it’s intentionally contrarian.

    To quote the timeless Mencken; nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

    Gets truer with age.

  2. Kevin, on July 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm Said:

    While the transport chain was moving Harvey Dent , and the chain of armored vehicles was interrupted by the flaming firteuck of the “upper 5th” street, they choose to “divert to lower 5th!!”. Clearly the road is closed going both directions, why not simply go on the other side, going against the flow of nonexistent trafiic, instead of diverting into the lower 5th that was obviously not closed….

    Maybe a whole buncha lives could have been saved.

  3. High C, on July 28th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Said:

    The Joker should be renamed The Terminator because he has the same threshold of pain, apparently.

  4. Mike, on July 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm Said:

    Did we ever see how Harvey got outta the hospital before the Joker blew it up? How he got into Maroni’s limo without the driver noticing?

    Clearly this “masterpiece” couldn’t have a hole like that so we must assume that Harvey got some League of Shadows training too?

  5. Pete, on July 29th, 2008 at 6:30 am Said:

    You might add to your “strong Bones” article the simple fact that Maroni should be dead. As someone who knows quite a bit about OHSA fall protection laws, I noticed when maroni said “the fall wouldn’t kill him” my first reaction was “BS!” In the USA, workers must by law tie-off when exposed to a fall greater than 6′. OHSA records are full of workers killed from a fall of just 1 story who fell onto concete or Asphalt. I believe Maroni was on the 3rd floor? It is possible for him to have lived but to make the claim that it couldn’t kill him is false. Batman further aiding the premise is also false.

  6. Aaron, on July 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am Said:

    This is very small, but I need to see if anyone has an answer for it. In the opening scene, the Joker places a smoke grenade in the banker’s mouth, then drives the bus away, which pulls the pin out (because its attached to the bus door by a line of some sort). If I’m not mistaken the pin remains on the floor 2-3 feet from the banker while the bus continues on. Why didn’t the bus drag the pin along behind it?

  7. ShrionHelm, on July 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Said:

    Lets revisit the Bat Bike topic again. Did you all notice how as Batman was making his way through various shortcuts (seemingly a shopping area) whilst pursuing The Joker he frivolously fired off the motor bike’s guns. He shot through glass and such, just enough to make it crackle, so that as he drove through it the glass would shatter and he would continue riding on… *hits the pause button* Let me point out that Batman’s head gear, if anything, has two glaring falicies.

    1.) He has no eye protection. (black spray paint)
    2.) He has no mouth protection. (perhaps gargling rocks…)

    *hits the play button* So Batman on his motorcycle, with no helmet mind you, (pointy ears don’t count) was able to spear head through shattered glass (by shooting his guns) with little to no regard for the property or the people who could have been on the opposite side, and gets no glass in his eyes and no cuts on his lips?

    Laughable.

    My next plight has to do with the action sequences, that is, if we can call what we saw action. The first point i’ll make is that the fight scenes with Batman simply involved him randomly throwing his arms around in short clips, sounds of grunts or tumbling bodies, and Batman turning his head. In that context we can assume that either his gloves are weigthed so that whomever he punches renders them unconcious, OR that he has such a level of martial arts expertise all his punches are that powerful. *hits the pause button* How come when The Batman punched The Joker, seemingly in a serious FORCEFUL manner, The Joker simply smiled and kept talking? I won’t linger on these topics much but even if they simply added The Joker spitting up spit/blood in that scene my suspended disbelief would have been quenched. Also, as a martial arts master, we should have been awarded more in depth fight scenes, like in Batman Begins.

    The scenes with Rachel just kept getting me upset because, its like they deliberately chose someone who vaguely remotely looks like Katie Holmes and zoomed in on her face. My brain just wouldn’t accept it simply because Katie Holms is *HOT* she is the reason why WE ALL watched Dawnsons Creek back then. The woman who played Rachel in this role, to me, is not attractive at all, no matter how hard I tried to make her look pretty.

    But I digress…

  8. tdksucks, on July 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm Said:

    Nathan, just read your review – thanks for the heads-up. I’ll add a link to it in the left bar soon.

  9. Mike, on July 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Said:

    Not enough Batman for me when its more of Dent and the Joker. The movie is like a wonnabee Heat and Godfather so nothing original. And make mine Holmes over Gyllenhaal. Maggie cant act and she is ugly as hell.

  10. the 60's, on July 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Said:

    The action only slight improvement from Begins. Bale’s Batman voice sounds like Dirty Harry or he’s grunting. The second Dawes cant hold a candle to the original actress.

  11. Paul, on July 29th, 2008 at 7:40 pm Said:

    No fallafel carts?????

    The joker didnt laugh so much but smiled more. The Joker is known for its sinister laughter.

    I hate recast and I cannot stand Maggie Gyllenhaal.

    cough:: Katie should have stayed:: cough

  12. John, on July 29th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Said:

    Hey guys remember…..
    ITS A FUCKING MOVIE!!!!!!
    Its a Amazing fucking movie, dont fucking hate because you didn’t like it.
    Everyone has their own fucking tastes in movies, just like music. No movie is perfect. Please someone name one movie with NOT 1 BLOOPER OR MISTAKE IN IT?? People are inperfect, and thereby things we make are inperfect.

    anyways Maggie Gyllenhall looks like a fucking cockgoblin

  13. why so serious, on July 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm Said:

    To be honest I still think Burton’s Batman is timeless entertainment and even Batman Begins was really good.

  14. Jac, on July 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Said:

    ShrionHelm, did you even see Batman Begins? MAYBE the reason he was able to spearhead through already shattered glass is because his cowl is meant to be very hard, so because of that he would be able to smash it though the already weakend glass, That is already evident in batman begins when his first cowl was able to be smashed with a hammer and he was talking with alfred about how that was a problem and he needed a stronger one. Plus, he went into the glass head on, not FACE first. Also, Bale uses the Keysi Fighting Method in both batman begins and the dark knight, the only difference is in Batman begins the camera was right up on his chest so you couldnt see anything. But I will admit Rachel did not work out in this movie that well because we were all used to and connected with katie holmes and then seeing bruce say “you once told me we’d be together, did you mean it?” made me think in my head “no she didnt mean it, because that chick didnt say it!” but yea, thats just me.

  15. kiterunner, on July 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm Said:

    Im advising Bale to use a voice modulator. Also how did the Joker dressing up as a retro nurse get pass by the staff and even by the guard? Batman’s squeeze is pathetic in many levels. Katie was far superior and would have enhance the continuity and emotional arc of this movie.

  16. Azrael, on July 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pm Said:

    To me the movie felt long and the Hong Kong scenes were unnecessary. Sad to see Dent’s story reduced to Darth Maul as if Nolan and team rushed it up. The long Halloween story spoiled me rotten and TDK was a disservice to Dent’s storyline. The blemish as the majority pointed out was Gyllenhaal. Many takes shots at her ugliness but its good to point how what many saw and that Holmes fit in the skin of Rachel Dawes more comfortably. Holmes and Bale as Bruce and Rachel are more couplish on the bigscreen unlike Gyllenhaal. If anyone saw Holmes and Eckhart on Thank you for Smoking the two generate lots of heat as well showing the love triangle would have worked convincingly if Katie chose to stay.

  17. loren, on July 30th, 2008 at 6:51 am Said:

    I thought it was dumb that the authorities on the ferries just stood there saying nothing and let the citizens and prisoners just walk up and pick up the detonators.

  18. carmine, on July 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am Said:

    Wow I actually read some of your claims and -gasp- much to my surprise none of them can hold water.
    Sorry but bitching about batman being vulnerable to dog attacks is sort of…silly?

    Also, Katie Holmes was awful. Gyllenhaal wasn’t much better. But then again, they aren’t the main focus of the movie, so why make them be?

  19. Don, on July 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am Said:

    I like Gary Oldman but would have been interesting if Clint Eastwood or even Dennis Quaid accepted the roles. The real discomfort for the audience was Maggie. On the acting dept.I have to say Katie smoked Maggie on this one and she’s not even resemble Katie at all. People behind me were ripping on her scenes with the actors, they kept wishing Katie was back and they were laughing on her interrogation scenes.

  20. not impress by TDK, on July 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am Said:

    plothole: How did Bruce knew The Joker at the party was coming for Dent?

    how did Gordon know Dent killed 5 people?

  21. Rick, on July 30th, 2008 at 11:04 am Said:

    5 minutes of Scarecrow was a copout. Come on Gordon’s family was held captive yet he makes that hokey speech on Gotham at the end. Jakey’s sister was so meh. Holmes had more layers to the rela.and character and a real batbabe.

  22. gijoe, on July 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm Said:

    Bale was a better actor in Batman Begins and no doubt Katie is a better draw than Maggie. I feel bad that Michael Caine,Eric Roberts,Freeman and Oldman were just window dressings to the film. Ledger was great but his lines are so cheesy at times. Did you read the greatest villain that topped the Joker was by Ralph Fiennes in Harry Potter. The Batman fans wont like that.

  23. comics, on July 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm Said:

    The quick editing on the action worked on Batman Begins not on TDK because the action for this film is more traditonal and less guerilla warfare. While Heath Ledger gave a fab performance I dont think he is Oscar worthy. Most of the consensus thinks Maggie was a bad replacement for Katie.

  24. Medic, on July 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm Said:

    The Dark Knight is hardly the greatest film of all time.

    There was no originality when its a cloned concept of Heat and the Godfather. Even the Rachel arc was a borrowed concept from Spiderman comics his childhood sweetheart killed in the hands of main nemesis Green Goblin.

  25. Bob, on July 30th, 2008 at 10:10 pm Said:

    The batmobile felt like a cameo. Bummer on that.

  26. Matilda, on July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm Said:

    ok:]
    first of all katie holmes sucks.
    shes married to tom cruise. so actually its perfect! you have a little family that just cant act to save there lives.

    you all talk about little things like how did dent get out of the hospital before the joker blew it up… these are parts of the movie that require you to use some common sense. The joker just turned harvey to his side… so obviously he’s not going to leave him to blow up… using my good common sense.. i know that he must have let dent out of another exit. or gave him time to get out of the building.

    you can bash maggie gyllenhaal all you want… but honestly i dont think she gives a shit what little geeks who sit on there computers all day talking about movies they dont like because they have no lives, think about her. she is an amazing actress who is sucsessful and living it up in hollywood with her husband (normal and has brain function… unlike tom cruise!) and child. so honestly bash her all you want… shes still gonna be in the movie:]

    you talk about how the batman knocks people uncontious in some scenes with his punches and you talk about how thats impossible… HES A FREAKING SUPERHERO FOR GOD SAKE! he can do w.e he wants. Again.. on this next point i used common sense and the facts given in the movie… you talk about how he doesn’t knock the joker uncontious but he does everyone else…. thats bc he doesn’t rly want to kill the joker… the joker talks throught the movie about how he doesnt want batman dead… hes too much fun. they cant live without each other…. this was one of the main focuses of the movie…. so obviously you weren’t paying attention bc you already had your stupid minds made up before you even saw it.

    heath ledger. i swear… if any of you… think… for one freakin second…. that he wasn’t the most amazing actor of his time… and did the most amazing job on this movie… you can go to hell.

    how dare you critize a man with so much superior talent to yours.. if u have any. further more how dare you insult his last complete movie.

    you say hes not good enough in this role to get nominated or win an oscar… well who do you think is good??? Katie Holmes?? Tome Cruise?? no no wait i know Marlon Brando! oh yes the godfather… thats a freakin train reck. lets watch a whole bunch of gang bangers kill each other. no plot. no purpose. no acting. if that movie won 3 oscars this is up for a million.

    Heath Ledger is an amzing and deticated actor. he locked himself up for a month reading batman comics and studying up on his coming role. he mastered the jokers laugh and then much more. he is believable.

    you sit here talking about these actors. heath ledger for example… untill you can do what he did….. even come slightly close to what he has acomplished…. shut you mouths.

    go see another movie if you didnt like this one.

    R.I.P Heath Ledger.
    <3

  27. tdksucks, on July 31st, 2008 at 12:02 am Said:

    This brings up an extremely important question:

    Why do so many girls have an obsession with adding an ASCII heart <3 to every mesage they write?

  28. novak, on July 31st, 2008 at 12:19 am Said:

    Im busting out laughing when Batman fell on his back to save Rachel and he has no injuries same way with Dent with 4 degrees burn and he just went on a killing spree. What’s more funny is the lack of mourning from Bale,Caine and Eckhart on Rachel’s character.What sets Maggie apart from Katie and other actresses? Just because she does porn stuff for Independent movies makes her superior? she is a terrible actress not to mention disgusting to watch. My wife and many women dont find her appealing and end up not caring for the romance in Batman. So this is not just a guy thing. Im no Katie fan but I have to defend her this time that she fits the bill for this franchise.

    Ledger blew me away but why will people wonna do what he did? what’s to envy a person who’s dead and while he was living he was on drugs,miserable and cant sleep. People laud his performance but he’s on his grave. This lauding on him is not forever. As Morgan Freeman said life goes on.

  29. Matilda, on July 31st, 2008 at 7:40 am Said:

    he was not on “drugs”. he has medication to deal with stress and sleep issues. everyone has problems…. dont exploit his.

  30. Jac, on July 31st, 2008 at 9:02 am Said:

    so novak, by your logic, if a firefighter puts out a fire thats burning your house down, then you wont be thankful if he goes home and cant sleep at night? leave his personal life out of it, he is being praised for his PERFORMANCE ON SCREEN not for living the perfect life, obviously.

  31. Mike, on July 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am Said:

    he was on oxycotton which is basically prescription heroin

  32. brightviolet, on July 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm Said:

    TEN REASONS WHY THE NEW BATMAN MOVIE IS OVERHYPED
    (and won’t stand the test of time)

    http://brightviolet.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/ten-reasons-why-the-new-batman-movie-is-overhyped-and-wont-stand-the-test-of-time/

    There’s my blog entry, and as others report, people assume you write a negative review just to “go against the crowd”. Or people think that lots of sold tickets is somehow evidence of its timeless quality.

  33. novak, on July 31st, 2008 at 10:48 pm Said:

    But Ledger was not so groundbreaking. Dont get me wrong he is great but people are so getting emotional and carried away with sympathy sensationalizing his acting when many actors are far superior than him.
    So many like Peter O.Toole till this day no Oscar.

  34. roswell, on July 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm Said:

    Batman does not kill but he endorses beating up till the death to interrogate kinda like the U.S. and countries beating up prisoners of war.

    On the chase scene there was a Chicago sign when Batman is from Gotham if Im correct.

    One actor ruined it and that’s Gyllenhaal. Katie made a fantastic Rachel Dawes and does not hurt that she’s beautiful.

  35. haley, on August 1st, 2008 at 3:19 am Said:

    How did Gordon just automatically know to play dead when he saved the mayor? It obviously wasn’t planned ahead of time because Batman didn’t know what was going on until he was in the apartment building. I hate this movie.

  36. samsonite, on August 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am Said:

    batman did not get upset about maggie’s death whatsoever.

  37. Tosh, on August 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm Said:

    OH! this <3 is a heart? Wow, I just thought people were sticking their butts out to be kissed (or kicked depending on the forum)

    Learn something new each day….

  38. Tyler, on August 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm Said:

    Honestly, Batman was just a bad movie and did not do justice to Tim Burton’s or even Batman Begins. It’s just sad how people think it’s the best movie ever just because of the media frenzy and cause others said so….it barely held up and that’s only cause Ledger was in it…

  39. Mark, on August 1st, 2008 at 8:41 pm Said:

    I agree that the movie was a disgrace. I was a big fan of bale in batman begins and thought that other installments would be promising, until I saw this dark knight. bad acting. bad directing. just bad

  40. sin city, on August 1st, 2008 at 8:46 pm Said:

    The cellphone sonar angle just screamed comic book outrageousness to me. Scarecrow and TwoFace were just pawns to this story but Dent carried the plot for this movie not Batman or even the Joker. As hard as Maggie tries to act sexy she’s not blockbuster and Batman material. No appeal to her at all. Im picking Katie on this round. Maggie as Rachel was like a slut made think Sherrybaby,Mona Lisa Smile,DonnieDarko,Secretary. Opps wrong movie and wrong portrayal for Rachel Dawes.

    On beating up dogs. That’s weird.

  41. Jacky, on August 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 am Said:

    This movie rocked. Heath did an oustanding job as the Joker…no one else could match up to how he performed..really each scene he was in was so believable. He put so much effort into this role and I love him so much for that (along with his other movies too :P ). R.I.P. Heath!!

    Also to people who keep bagging this movie…why bother to waste more minutes of your life writing a bad response to it? lol

    Also not aiming this at one person in particular, who are we to judge heath in a personal way? (by this i mean his death and the speculation that comes with it)

    Oh by the way lmao Tosh haha thats what I used to think about those <3 pictures haha :P

  42. :.:JoKeR!:.:, on August 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 am Said:

    QUOTE >>>>”Did we ever see how Harvey got outta the hospital before the Joker blew it up? How he got into Maroni’s limo without the driver noticing?

    Clearly this “masterpiece” couldn’t have a hole like that so we must assume that Harvey got some League of Shadows training too?” <<<<QUOTE

    Sorry Mike did you also want to see if he possibly went to the bathroom too?….

  43. I thought it was great., on August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Said:

    Just to point out, as the camera pans over to Boss Maroni hobbling into the car you can briefly see a hand grabbing the shoulder of the associate that was to get into the other side so assume that was meant to be Two-Face. I only noticed it the third time around.

    People who are anti-TDK seem to be implying that everybody who has seen and enjoyed it couldn’t possibly have thought it was good and are only pretending to like it. That seems a bit strange, I’m not doubting the legitimacy of anyone’s dislike of the film, it’s not going to cater to 100% of people’s tastes.

  44. Tony2face, on August 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am Said:

    I wanted to escape into another world, I wanted to see see batman, to see gotham as it should be. Instead I got some weird rendition of heat or godfather. I would’ve watched those kind of movies if I felt like it. but I didn’t coz wanted to see batman, and I didn’t see no batman or gotham as it should be.

  45. Soulpt, on August 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm Said:

    I am a fan of the film overall. There were a lot of things that were done well…the same way BB did a lot of thing right. However I have several major gripes that prevent me from falling all over it the way many have in their online reviews.

    I could not agree with you more regarding the Chicago location for the shoot. It just looked like a run of the mill city and nothing like Gotham has ever been portrayed. Even in BB there are some great shots of the city that give you a feel as to the scope it has. To me the backdrop of Gotham has to be set to really feel the movie and this was not done in TDK.

    Secondly the batsuit looks more like the Green Goblin’s suit of armor from the original Spiderman movie than something Batman would wear. Once and for all this has to be done correctly. For starters it should be jet black and there should be no need to ‘explain’ why the suit must be jointed to allow for movement. It’s a given that Batman can’t move all that great in these suits and there is NO WAY one could be used in real life/hand to hand combat. So as for making the suit more functional and spending time explaining it to me is wasteful. I continue to contend that the suit in Forever was perfectly fine with the exception of the nipples. Take those off and frankly it looks great.

    As for the Batcave I accepted that it was a temporary set up but it didn’t need to be so well lit. I can life with it being off site from Wayne Manor but it would have been a nice touch to give it a darker ambience.

    I am also sick of the “Tumbler” version of the Batmobile and was happy to see it destroyed. With any luck that will be the last of it. Batman driving around in some plated tank is not what I read in the comics. Let’s get this franchise out of the ‘realism’ kick that it’s on and get a bit closer to what it was intended to be…a action comic book movie with dark tones and a great detective story.

    As for ‘wiretapping’ the sudden invocation of morality/ethics into this film is irrelevent. Batman is a vigilante and Fox has no problem for better than a year helping him in every way possible. Even in the comics and past movies Batman has the ability to tap into law enforcement databases. Suddenly we need to hear about how this creates an ethical dilemma when a mass murdering psychopath is on the loose. PLEASE…someone save the policital angle and its relevance to a post 9/11 world for a speech at the Oscars. Seriously where was Fox’s objections when in Begins when the Tumbler was both running over and flipping random police cars??? I don’t pay $10 to hear about such nonsense at a movie about Batman.

  46. Matilda, on August 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm Said:

    heath died due to the mistake of his doctor (psyciatrist or w.e.) they perscribed 2 meds that were known the kill when put together.

    it was not an overdose.
    when he was found all the pills were in the bottles and the correct number of pills were there.

    he was simply lying down in bed.
    his massage person was waiting for him and when he took such a long time she went to look for him and found him and called the paramedics. he had a young daughter matilda and a beautiful girlfriend.

    he had no reason to want to die.
    his death wasnt his fault.

    you people want to twist his death for your sick pleasure than fine… but this is the truth.

    R.I.P. Heath Ledger

  47. tdksucks, on August 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm Said:

    Quote: “People who are anti-TDK seem to be implying that everybody who has seen and enjoyed it couldn’t possibly have thought it was good and are only pretending to like it.”

    Nobody is saying anyone is pretending to have liked the movie. Well, I’m sure some portion of people who are part of the mock hype are pretending, but most probably genuinely liked it. That’s not a big deal, a lot of people like a lot of crap movies. The major contention is that SO MANY people seem to blindly like this. They truly believe that it’s one of the greatest movies ever made.

    If you don’t believe mass numbers of people could blindly follow along with hype or propaganda, then I guess Nazi era Germany never happened?

    Of course there is a backlash whenever somebody who loves this movie is told that they’ve fallen for the hype and therefore had their perceptions influenced so greatly as to have an opinion which was created for them – nobody wants to believe they’re brainwashed. It’s the sign of good brainwashing.

  48. Nathan, on August 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm Said:

    Hey, thanks for reading the review and I’d be grateful if it could be included. You certainly have a site worth reading here, good job.

  49. Ron, on August 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm Said:

    I looked at my watch about an hour into this movie and thought about leaving the theatre…it went from bad to worse after that and was a total disappointment. Bad story, bad acting…I mean Eric Roberts…most of his films go straight to video. The only thing this flick was missing was a cameo of Steven Segal. Truly disturbing how all the median hype can brainwash the masses.

  50. ToxicVirus, on August 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm Said:

    Well, I didn’t care for the Dark Knight, even though I thought Batman Begins was one of the best Batman movies ever. Here’s my review: http://toxicvirus.freehostia.com/?p=41

  51. Jacky, on August 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 am Said:

    wow some of you just keep questioning why did this happen and how come we didnt see how he got there and here and rah rah rah….you dont have to show every single step a character makes to get from one spot to another coz that would just bore the crap outa a viewer…also every movie made isnt perfect so why bag this movie so much…could you have done a better job?..

    (This isnt aimed at one person…its aimed at anyone who keeps questioning the movie like this.)

  52. Dylon Whyte, on August 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am Said:

    Just for fun, here’s a link to the 4000 (or so) words that I wrote about why TDK sucks: http://www.dylonwhyte.com/2008/07/the_dark_knight_a_negative_bat.html

  53. Josepg Kerr, on August 5th, 2008 at 3:14 am Said:

    yeah this movie sucked a grapefruit through a straw, and its kind of refreshing that there are people left who realize its just another overrated hollywood movie… there are many reasons for this movie beeing one of the greatest waste of dollars in the last few years (think about how many usefull things like making some porn with ole r. siffredi ore building schools in africa could have been done with this amount of money) but for me the worst thing was nolans pseudo-hyper-realism-thing for im a great comicfan (joker with makeup, no “batmobile”, batwing etc pp) i would have find it kind of consequent, when batman would have been dressed in a black ploce-suit with a ski-mask instead of his costume… and the joker should have been juast a normal-dressed guy with a pin on his jacket ;) ….
    funny that mr. nolan and mr. ledger mentioned the killing joke to be a major influence for this movie (for it depicts how the joker became what he is and how this effects the really special relationship between him and batman) .. haha ….. what a bunch of douche-bags

  54. Mike, on August 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am Said:

    check this out:

    http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/fs/20080805/121796735900.html

    last line from the review reads:

    ‘Trust me, life is too short to waste time with this appalling movie.’

  55. B, on August 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am Said:

    One of the things, and there are a lot, that annoyed me about this movie most is the nature of the dialogue. Not the fact that it sucks or that it’s delivered badly, but that it never seems to break away from being expository. Instead of having realistic or even stylish, clever conversations/interactions, the characters simply stand around and state what is going on, who this person is, why this is happening, as if to say “you might THINK our plot is muddled and our themes non-existent, but HERE’S why it’s so deep and intellectual”. The dialogue is more of a running commentary on the “plots” development than a means to entertain through good ol’ fashion character development. Was Batman even in this movie, or was that a doll with a pull string that prompts it to spout out cheesy inspirational and/or “moody” phrases to let us know he means business? Phrases which seem to be the same idea repeated over and over again with slightly different wording. “Batman did this to himself”, “Sacrifice…something something”, “Being rich is hard…”, “Letting people die is way better than using their modified magic cellphones to save them from utter destruction… I’m Morgan Freeman” and so on.

    Here’s an example of how Nolan chooses to tell us everything instead of showing us:

    -First scene of the movie, Jokers men preparing to rob the bank. Instead of just letting the scene play out silently, allowing the mystery of the Jokers plan to (possibly) intrigue the audience enough to stop them from walking out, he decides to give these henchmen cheesy, unrealistic dialogue as they DISCUSS how mysterious and, basically, how badass the Joker is. Another option would have been to SHOW us how badass the Joker is by having him do something…I don’t know…badass. The pencil trick is pretty much the only thing I liked about this movie because it was physical, visual, and the only thing stopping this movie from being better suited for a radio play.

    Basically, Nolan is too wrapped up in his own self-love, or perhaps admiring the endless beauty of Chicago, to realize that having the characters state complex or compelling ideas is not the same as actually exploring them through the film.

    So sadly enough, the characters in Nolans film are basically the same as the deluded majority who tell us The Dark Knight is the second coming but, tragically, can’t show us why…

  56. tdksucks, on August 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am Said:

    B shares an extremely good point and well-explained. Perhaps it’s a bit deep for many, but the “air” of the movie does seem to spell things out for the audience rather than allow the themes to take hold through the medium.

    Clearly Nolan’s brother should not be writing screenplays.

  57. Michael R. Burke, on August 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Said:

    Hey B…

    Don’t let tdksucks get your hopes up about your inteligent point thats “deep” for most people, because you used a horrible example…

    Let me get this straight… arranging a plan to rob a bank owned and ran by a mob, where he goes to hire a bunch of people to help him but disguised so they don’t know its him, and have it perfectly set up where they all kill each other, even prepared for one of the last ones to expect that “the Joker” told “him” to kill him so just in time another guy you hired would break through the wall with a bus and kill him(okay, not so “realistic”, but entertaining), ruthlessly shooting him without saying a word, then intimidating the bank owner on the way out reliving it’s him to the audience DOESN’T show how “bad-a” he is?

    The dialog there just added to it and wasn’t unnecessary… it was talking about how “bad-a” the Joker is so you have an idea of that… and in the meantime it IS showing you and you don’t even realize!

    That scene was amazing!

    Clearly tdksucks shouldn’t be doing blogs ;)

  58. Sketch, on August 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Said:

    The site there has my gripes.

  59. Sketch, on August 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Said:

    You: What? Sketch, how could you not like it?
    Sketch: There’s a lot not to like, You.
    You: But Heath Ledger?
    Sketch: He was a great psychotic character. He wasn’t quite the Joker to me, but I was spoiled by Bruce Timm and Mark Hammill. Good stuff for a “swan song” though.
    You: What about Two-Face?
    Sketch: That’s the part of the movie I really enjoyed. They did a great job with Two-Face, it was a wonderful performance, and the pacing in the reveal scene in the hospital was positively masterful.
    You: What about Christian Bale? Wasn’t he the best Batman ever?
    Sketch: FUCK YOU! His crappy, lisping voice as Batman made you take a guy in a mask fighting crime even less seriously.
    You: He did a great Bruce Wayne, though.
    Sketch: To HELL with that. No one does a great Bruce Wayne, except maybe Clooney in that dutch-angled abortion Shomaker made.
    You: But it’s the best Batman movie EVER!
    Sketch: *Pokes you in the eye*
    You: OW, you fucktard! You’re the one who brought it up like a surly bitch!
    Sketch: Point taken.

    Rather than bitch on about it, why don’t I just list the ways that it could have been better? Find a way to improve matters rather than just complain. First off, take out Hong Kong. It didn’t need to be there.
    You: But it established the cell-phone radar technology.
    Next, take out the cell-phone radar technology and have the Dark Knight detective do some detecting. The radar just made for confusing, disorienting CG which I’m sure was lovely in IMax. Next take out Rachel and retroactively remove her from the last movie too. She’s done nothing to improve the series. Give Dent some other girlfriend or something to turn him bad-ass. It can be done. Next, give the name of Gordon’s daughter, Barbara and show her face. Don’t just refer to her as “your sister” while you’re talking to his wife who is also named Barbara. It’s confusing, especially to people who have come to know his daughter in other incarnations of the franchise. Just don’t confuse us.
    Explosions. The Joker seemed to have the power to blow up any-THING any-SIZE any-TIME. Use the time you’ve taken out of Hong Kong and pointless love interests to show his team circumventing the security that a city of that size would have, even in a universe where 9-11 didn’t happen. I’d just like to give Gotham more credit than that.

  60. josh, on August 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm Said:

    wow. every movie makes mistakes. i think this website was made just to be anti-mainstream. it was a good movie. amazing movie. get over it. we all have different tastes..but creating a website to bash a movie you can atleast say was well made. wow. grow up people.

  61. nobody, on August 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm Said:

    just because its popular doesn’t mean its awful. get over yourselves, you bunch of wannabe movie critics.

  62. Russ, on August 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pm Said:

    Nathan – if you were watching the movie, you’d see that the guy who made the call to “divert to lower fifth” was obviously unsure of his decision and was immediately questioned by his partner. Don’t pinprick a movie unless you were paying attention.
    Mike – why does every scene need to be spelled out for you? it’s a movie, enjoy it, or just complain on the internet like the rest of these people. Besides, they show Harvey punching some dude and getting in the limo, so pay attention instead of knocking it.
    Pete – by falling on his feet, he would only break his legs, which should be your real complaint. But analyzing OSHA records for a movie is almost as bad as Pete calling Harvey a ninja.
    ShrionHelm – you’re analysis of his “protection” does not include his helmet which you so obviously disreguard, do you really think that a billionaire ninja is going to protect his head with mere “pointy ears?” The rest of this movie analysis bases the entire movie on fight scenes, a small part of a comic book movie, and I could not finish reading such an obviously incomplete review. And we did not ALL watch Dawson’s Creek, that was just you.
    Mike (again) – heat was a horrible movie, don’t compare the two.
    the 60’s – Katie Holmes would not do the movie because of Scientology. Do we cancel an entire movie because of one insignificant actress? Whoever when to go see Batman just for the character “Rachel Dawes” should just watch more Dawson’s Creek.
    Paul – the joker laughed more than he smiled, watch the movie again sometime.
    John – Thank you. Thank you.
    Jac – Makes more senseK than the rest of them.
    Kiterunner – how many people think the entire movie was based on Katie Holmes?
    Azrael – wow, more about Katie? did anybody see this movie for any other reason?
    Loren – put yourself in their shoes. nobody wants to die. Do you?
    Carmine – Thank you. Thank you.
    Don – Really? Clint Eastwood? Gary Oldman was too good for this part, but humble enough to do it. And Katie Holmes is a terrible actress.
    comics – we needed a bad actress to replace Katie, but unfortunately we got a better one.
    Matilda – thank you. Especially the part about Heath Ledger, the most amazing actor to ever grace this planet.

    The rest of you, enjoy your blogs. Go watch the movie sometime instead of looking for soft points to bash. Anybody who thinks this movie is mediocre needs to STOP WATCHING DAWSON’S CREEK! Are we really watching Batman for the romance? For Katie Holmes? For scientific accuracy when half of you have no idea what you saw? Watch another movie sometime, it’s better than watching the WB every weeknight at 8.

  63. jayandbob, on August 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm Said:

    ALL YOU MOTHER FUCKERS ARE GONNA PAY. YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE BALL LICKERS. We’re gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little whiney bitches. Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax fucks, we’re gonna make them eat our shit, then shit out our shit and make them eat that shit that was made up or our shit that we made them eat, then, all you little fucks are next.

    Love, Jay and Silent Bob

  64. Russell, on August 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm Said:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the official Katie Holmes Fansite!

  65. PinkPig, on August 7th, 2008 at 2:38 am Said:

    Fans of the Dark Knight really do seem to get quite aggressive with differing opinions, don’t they?

    It’s almost like they don’t have any faith in their own judgement…

  66. to russ, on August 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am Said:

    russ this movie is overrated. if you can’t see that then you are blind, sorry

  67. B, on August 7th, 2008 at 8:02 am Said:

    I see what you mean. It’s almost as though they’re trying to convince themselves that it doesn’t stink. Which is ridiculous because if they like it, that’s their right, so why are they even coming to this site? It’s obviously been set up so that people can voice their criticisms. Would the diehard fans prefer that everyone on here do this on their praise boards instead? To each his own…

    And just for kicks, in response to that Burke character who may or may not have been trying to make me feel bad about my little ol’ self a few posts back, I really didn’t come here to have my head patted by tdksucks but simply to state an opinion. I agree that the Joker did do SOME “badass” things in the movie and that there are many more examples I could have used, but the fact is that the bank scene hit me like a brick to the face because it was the first scene. Regardless of it being completely unrealistic, I’m not saying it wasn’t or didn’t have the potential to be somewhat cool, but as I said, Nolan refused to just let us WATCH it happen without his goofy expository dialogue. The second offense: the bank manager giving his melodramatic commentary on how criminals used to have “honor” or something like that. What, he preferred the guys who robbed the bank six weeks ago because they had the courtesy not to shoot each other? No, this is Nolan’s way of telling us that “man, these aren’t just any criminals, they’re SUPER criminals”. Now, I can’t cite anymore dialogue word for word, since I only saw the movie once, but there are plenty more examples, many of which come from Harvey who was basically only there to shoot off idealistic cliches until turning into Two-Face.

    So, what that big chunk of wordage is trying to get across is: I’m not saying I’m a complete hardass who can’t accept the opinions of others to some extent, but I posted on tdksucks because, well, I happen to think The Dark Knight in fact sucks…

  68. everybody, on August 7th, 2008 at 11:05 am Said:

    it’s ironic how much you all claim to hate everything this movie is, yet you can’t stop discussing it.

  69. to everybody, on August 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Said:

    its not ironic; hate is active; indifference is what is inactive, therefore we are acting in tune with “hate”

  70. Someone with eyes, on August 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Said:

    First, you all have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy to much free time and should go get laid. Second this website is the dumbest idea for a website I have ever seen. Third opinions are like assholes (which you all are) everyone has one and they all stink.

    Now go fuck yourself,
    someone with eyes

  71. tdksucks, on August 7th, 2008 at 6:41 pm Said:

    to the “everybody” commenter:

    Yeah, and everyone who hates the fact the US is at war should just STFU because if they hate it then they should just bury their head in the sand and accept the sanctioned party line – because if they did that then we wouldn’t have now the majority against it, and that just plain sucks for the people who have been for it all along and are now in the minority.

    Let’s also hate on anyone with a differeing opinion than the majority. Let’s build a society where once a majority opinion exists, anyone with a differing opinion should be visited by the thought police.

  72. josh, on August 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm Said:

    russ. every point you made is amazing. which is why you’re one of my bestest buddies in da whooole wide world.

    to B, we’re not convincing ourselves. every point on why this movie “sucks” is just stupid flaws that happen in movies. which russ pretty much proved the majority of them wrong. every one has their own views of the movie but give your review a little back bone instead of picking out things that have nothing to do with the structure of the movie.

    i don’t know about the rest of you…but i’m ttly tuning into the WB tonight at 8. omgz.

  73. everybody, on August 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm Said:

    the thought police! youre so clever! did you come up with that all by yourself?

  74. Russ, on August 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm Said:

    Did you guys really think you were gonna make a site about a movie that you all hate, and that nobody was gonna disagree? Come on now, you people obviously don’t watch movies very often. Especially the 90% of you who hate this movie because Katie Holmes did not appear. Didn’t you see the trailers? Did you not realize that the role was recast? Do you people not realize that Katie Holmes is not Batman?

  75. josh, on August 8th, 2008 at 6:28 am Said:

    i’m batman.

  76. when kids use the internet, on August 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am Said:

    you get this… yeah guys! skate or die!!!

  77. stupidity, on August 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm Said:

    i’m right! im always right! the dark knight sucks because everyone else loves it!!! ONLY UNPOPULAR MOVIES NOBODY HAS HEARD OF AND DAWSONS CREEK ARE WORTH WATCHING

  78. Noyjeetut, on August 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Said:

    I did mine in video format… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGI4giowjTQ

    Lots of interesting opinions here. Thanks for making the site, it helps sort out all the hype.

  79. Jack, on August 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm Said:

    Hey no wonder your name says stupidity…

    By far this is a stupid website and who ever made it is a douche bag…why would you go this far to complain about a movie :S

    This movie rocked =)

  80. Nyongods, on August 9th, 2008 at 2:24 am Said:

    If Joker staged his own arrest to kill Lao, he knew that he will make an attempt to kill Dent, if not killed then arrange his successful kidnap, will possibly have to fight Batman (which probably he does not know since may be he knows that Dent is Batman), will get arrested, will attempt to buzz a ring on that cell phone, will come out of the interrogation room, will not be affected by that cellphone bomb explosion and finally kill Lao and escape if the cops are not around.

    And if he is able to kill Dent, then his idea for creating the “save-Dent-and-Rachel” situation jeopardies.

  81. steveO, on August 9th, 2008 at 8:04 am Said:

    how could the joker walk away from an evacuated hospital with Harvey inside (?) and not one cop within 100 feet of the place? It was a ghost town. even though everyone was evacuated, surely there would have been a ton of cops keeping an eye on the place from a safe distance. and if Harvey’s face was sheared by the fire how come his eyeball is perfectly intact. it would have popped like a pin pong ball. where are all these cohort helpers of the joker coordinating planting bombs and detonators all over the place?

  82. to steveO, on August 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Said:

    YOU ARENT SUPPOSED TO KNOW. THATS WHY NOBODY ELSE KNEW HOW THE BOMBS GOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  83. nimrod, on August 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Said:

    This movie sucked. Sorry, but seriously.. let’s be honest and analyze it like you have…

    …done? Yeah, it sucked.

  84. amandzing, on August 11th, 2008 at 7:04 am Said:

    katie holmes isn’t in this movie/?well then, stop the bus write there. of course, everythings wrong with the movie if katie aint innit. the next 365 entires may as well be…katie wasn’t in the movie lol

    yes write is spelt correctly

  85. halo, on August 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm Said:

    Iron Man was the real superhero flick. If you wantrealism and depression like TDK then watch the news. The mishap for this movie is the fast wrap up of Dent’s story and Rachel Dawes who acted like a ditzy whore.

  86. Brandon, on August 11th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Said:

    I agree with this video blog on what’s wrong with the Dark Knight
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs_UvjEjsoI

    I agree with this 5 points what sucks about this movie

    http://bleutuna.com/qmanning/2008/07/25/the-5-worst-things-about-the-dark-knight/

  87. exactly, on August 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Said:

    exactly halo

  88. Sarcastro, on August 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Said:

    Batman does China

  89. Sarcastro, on August 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Said:

    I can’t fucking wait till Ironman II comes out!! It’s gonna kick so much fucking ass

  90. GrimFox, on August 14th, 2008 at 11:42 pm Said:

    you all suck so much for hating this movie, this has to be one of the best batman movies ever made, if not the best….wait…..it IS the best, Heath Ledger’s preformence as the joker was spot on, you all are complaining about Christians Bale’s voice as batman…if you were batman….wouldn’t you want to disguise your voice you retards. aparently, you guys don’t have the brain power to think situations through all the way, let me guess, you all couldn’t get into theaters to see it, so everyone else saw it so now your acting like cry babies cause mommy wouldn’t let you see it. i’m sure if the movie was filled with curses, blood and nudity, you would have a different opinion about it. All of you are a digrace to movie goers everywhere, you are a waste of brainmatter and skin, and i’m sorry if i made your heads hurt for all my big words, and not including any kind of cursing, i know that your type of people like that.

  91. Jimmyboy, on August 15th, 2008 at 1:45 am Said:

    LOL GrimFox. Hi-five buddy

  92. Nogard46, on August 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am Said:

    finally a voice of reason. Yes the movie was watchable and some what enjoyable. But the hype for it is just ridiculous. TDK was like a Saw movie, or just like any other plain average comic book adaptation. Full of plot holes, not developed characters, shallow plot, shallow character, over done, over use of special effects and violence. Just wish poeple would move on, it would serve everyone better, if everyone in the movie fan community realize this and move on.

  93. Jimmyboy, on August 15th, 2008 at 2:22 am Said:

    you’re likening TDK to saw? SAW? Dear god, and tdksucks claims I have the lower iq. the movie wasn’t riddled with plot holes. Read the responses to most of tdksucks issues and you’ll find on average more than response clearing up preceived plot holes. character development did not suck. Almost every scene with characters had some form of development involved. shallow script? a movie that deals with themes such as good and evil, vigilantes and their place in society, fear, escalation, heros and why we need them is not shallowly scripted. and as for over use of special effects and violence, it was pg. nowhere near as violent as , to use your example, saw, or a number of other movies out there. and most of the explosions etc. where done for real.

  94. Michael, on August 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am Said:

    “Almost every scene with characters had some form of development involved” Lol. What kind of development are you thinking of Jimmyboy? The joker is just a psychiatric patient and doesn’t change whatsoever. Bruce Wayne stumbles around with the same wooden facial expression during the entire movie. Batman only grumbles out semi-philosophical platitudes with his grunt-voice or is being molested by dogs. The only character that has some development is Harvey Dent when he changes into Two-Face, which is just about the most unbelievable character-development I’ve ever had to witness.

    This movie was a torture to watch, they should use it in Guatanamo Bay or something.

  95. Jac, on August 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am Said:

    The Joker is not meant to change, he is an absolute, like he has always been since he was created. Batman/Bruce goes through major change in the movie, from thinking he has everything under control and he’ll be able to quit soon, to finding out what its really gonna take to bring down someone like the joker, and then realizing that this is something hes gonna be doing forever, and I think everyone can agree bruce/batman is in a completely different mindset by the end of the movie. As for two face im not even gonna explain his character development considering anyone with a brain can see it. By the way trying to spice things up by saying he was “molested” by dogs doesnt help your point at all.

  96. Michael, on August 15th, 2008 at 10:02 am Said:

    Yeah, maybe, but you’d have to be a true mindreader to see that Bruce is in a “completely different mindset” in the end of the movie, because Nolan and/or Bale aren’t showing it at all. Maybe Bale also died during the making of this movie and they had to use a real size actionfigure or something, because his facial-expressions are completely the same during the entire 150 agonizing minutes. I’ve seen Arnold Schwarzenneger portraying more subtle emotions in his acting than the horrible non-acting Christian Bale is doing in this overrated Heat-wannabe movie. If you want to make a movie like Heat, al least write a decent script and hire some actors who can give some depth to the story.

  97. Jac, on August 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am Said:

    Well, not really, I think its pretty obvious to everyone that saw it that hes in a different mindset at the end. Im sorry his acting wasnt good enough for you. By the way heat was an inspiration for the movie, not a goal. And the movie had plenty of depth, thats what was so good about it.

  98. PinkPig, on August 18th, 2008 at 2:22 am Said:

    I think one of my main problems with the movie is that it takes itself very very seriously – it clearly thinks that it is creating weighty drama – but the characters are hopelessly unrealistic.

    Real criminals do not sit around in little councils that conveniently represent a buffet of national stereotypes. They don’t keep their money in the form of gigantic piles of bullion in bank vaults. They don’t hand it all over to a single offshore account because they don’t need to – it would be tied up in property, political contributions, stocks, shares… the kind of thing that the Joker wouldn’t be able to steal.

    Real psychopaths have never, ever concocted schemes like the Joker. I defy anyone to find a real-world psychopath remotely like him – mass murderers and mad bombers and terrorists are all very different creatures to this strangely empty man-as-idea who can magically get people to do exactly what he wants and smuggle bombs into any building he pleases. The Joker is a Saturday morning cartoon villain, a bad guy who does evil because he is evil. All this talk about how he represents an idea comes very close to saying that he is bad because he wears a black hat.

    And how seriously can any adult take the forces of law and order when they are represented by a man in a bat-suit?

    It’s not that superhero movies shouldn’t be made or that they don’t have their virtues – they should be, they do.

    But the movie is so heavy, so weighty, so keen to make moving and emotionally powerful moments out of the struggle against crime and chaos, that these fundamentally silly, unrealistic tropes – these cliches we have seen again and again and again (the stereotypical Italian American criminals; the bad guy whose worse than any other bad guy before and who just lives to be so baddity baddity bad) – horribly undermine the film’s po-faced seriousness.

    Take a leaf out of the Joker’s book. When people rank this movie above the Godfather – or, hell, even above Die Hard 3 – just point and laugh. Why so serious?

  99. Domino, on August 18th, 2008 at 7:16 am Said:

    You know What¿ this batman suit-armor is the same of the Green Goblin!!! just painted in black, check this http://xzq9fa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1psVtVOizvu3UVTfsHy3VlV0QtS5LKJgDIWSm7ikwNvCnY0wKxXvkdN4mF0hId1Y-51f0bK0OELg4/Copia%20duende%20batz.JPG

  100. Jac, on August 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am Said:

    “Real criminals do not sit around in little councils”
    -For one thing, how do you think you have ANY credibility for that statement? Do you have experience? Are you involved in a big city mob? And for another, theres a reason it is called “organized” crime.

    “Real psychopaths have never, never concocted schemes like the Joker.”
    -I’m guessing the reason is he is a fictional villain, not a real one. I dont need to say more.

    “And how seriously can any adult take the forces of law and order when they are represented by a man in a bat-suit?”
    -If you seriously do not think that a Batman movie should have Batman in it because he is too unrealistic, then you should have NEVER walked in to see The Dark Knight. Your mindset is what disappoints you, not the movie.

    Nolan aimed to make the movie on a more realistic level, he never said he wanted it to be perfectly realistic and for everything to be 100% logical and make perfect sense in the real world. He accomplished his goal, and everyone is praising him for it, and you cant accept that. SORRY.

  101. John, on August 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm Said:

    If anyone of the haters finds me a credible source where Nolan says “This movie will be like watching real life, with super-heroes. It is THAT realistic” then I will personally condemn this movie forever, but as far as I have seen Nolan only ever said, “It will be MORE realistic” or “Most realistic super-hero movie”

  102. dutch, on August 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Said:

    I kept looking at the time twice so it means the movie is a bit stale. This should have been an action superhero flick not a psychological drama.

    Miscast actors were Roberts and Gyllenhaal.

    Batman’s voice was so comical.

  103. Earlofthercs, on August 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Said:

    Basically the people who don’t like the movie don’t understand romantacism (as in the art/literature style, not as in giving flowers to your girlfriend). Superheroes are inherently linked to that classical literatary field, rather than the modernist movement.

  104. PinkPig, on August 19th, 2008 at 4:27 am Said:

    Pointing and laughing…

    “For one thing, how do you think you have ANY credibility for that statement? Do you have experience? Are you involved in a big city mob? And for another, theres a reason it is called “organized” crime.”

    Dumb wordplay is not evidence. Find me some evidence. Otherwise, those scenes just look like a tired, implausible cliche, taken from another era.

    “Nolan aimed to make the movie on a more realistic level, he never said he wanted it to be perfectly realistic and for everything to be 100% logical and make perfect sense in the real world. He accomplished his goal, and everyone is praising him for it, and you cant accept that. SORRY.”

    It’s supposed to be more realistic, yet it’s full of dumb moments that are deeply UN-realistic.

    Also, it has a pretentious tone that clashes with the fundamental silliness of a man in a bat suit who beats up criminals. I’m happy to watch a batman movie, but a batman movie that thinks it’s HEAT is just stupid – there’s a fundamental clash of moods going on there.

    Basically, my problem is that the movie invites me to take it seriously, but then is so full of unrealistic or downright moronic elements that I can’t. So I don’t.

    “Basically the people who don’t like the movie don’t understand romantacism (as in the art/literature style, not as in giving flowers to your girlfriend). Superheroes are inherently linked to that classical literatary field, rather than the modernist movement.”

    I do understand Romanticism. I can also spell it.

    Cheap shots aside, stop using watered down Ayn Rand. Superhero movies don’t get a pass for being overblown, tonally inconsistent, badly written or just plain thick merely because they come from a particular genre. It’s perfectly possible to do heroic melodrama well – and it’s perfectly possible to do it badly.

    In case it isn’t clear, I think the Dark Knight sucks as realism, but that it’s also pretty insipid when considered as Romanticism too. And I don’t think the movie successfully strikes any kind of balance between these two ideals.

    However, one thing I have noticed is that its defenders tend to shift their ground a lot. “Oh it’s more realistic,” they say – until someone shows them that, no, it isn’t realistic to have a guy’s eyeball perfectly preserved in the fakey looking CGI burned side of his head or to have a super-criminal who can magically get huge quantities of explosives onto boats without anyone noticing.

    At which point – “No no!” they cry, “It’s meant to be fiction”. Okay. Fine. But it’s really not that great as fiction. It’s not the WURST FILM EVAH! It’s just flawed. The characters are all two dimensional. The dialogue is on-the-nose. The fight scenes are badly edited. The set design is dull. The themes are all over the place. The conclusion is mawkishly sentimental. Plus, some people like their fiction to be at least a little believable. (I’ll happily watch the wildest and weirdest stuff, if only the people in it are reacting like human beings.)

    A more realistic view of the Dark Knight is that it’s about on the level of a Die Hard movie with a dash of Saw. And for some people, that just isn’t enough.

    Personally, though, I like talking about the films attempts to be something deeper. No film is ever “just entertainment”. People only say that when they are feeling insecure and want to shut down debate.

    But even if you just look at the surface of the Dark Knight, that surface is pretty dull.

  105. Jac, on August 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm Said:

    Ok for one, your saying I dont have any evidence that organized crime is like that, but at the same time you dont have any either. So to bash the movie for that doesnt make any sense at all. By the way its not just “dumb wordplay”, thats what crime organizations such as mobs are referred to as.
    Maybe it has moments to it that are not perfectly realistic, so what, do you think its possible to make a perfectly realistic superhero movie? No. Is it possible to make one on a more realistic level? Yes. And that is what The Dark Knight is. No film is ever “just entertainment” huh? Yeah, lets see you point out the depth and moral values of something like meet the spartans. So what if this movie had multiple themes, theres nothing wrong with that, you can make anything sound bad if you try hard enough, and thats what your doing.

  106. it is possible, on August 19th, 2008 at 12:58 pm Said:

    to make a fairly realistic superhero movie… it was called i think batman begins; this movie, not as much … it didn’t really know what i wanted to be but it made $$$ right so hey its a winner, but as a movie for movie sake, its just average

  107. SeenitAll, on August 19th, 2008 at 11:24 pm Said:

    Ah, it was all done 90 years ago and better, anyway:

    “Silent Shadow of The Bat-Man”

    PART ONE:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=U_bjAhynSrY

    PART TWO: (with the original Joker, better than Ledger)
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=ByTfwmyHr3Q

    Part THREE:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD4XqYT1-JU

  108. PinkPig, on August 20th, 2008 at 4:57 am Said:

    “Ok for one, your saying I dont have any evidence that organized crime is like that, but at the same time you dont have any either. So to bash the movie for that doesnt make any sense at all.”

    My point is that it’s a cliche. You see it over and over again in movies and children’s cartoons. It’s pure Dick Tracy.

    Compare it with The Wire or The Sopranos, where you have a fresh, interesting take on organized crime (and one which I’d argue is almost certainly far, far more realistic).

    I’m not saying that criminals don’t network – it’s just that the “council” of criminals sitting around, especially when they all conveniently represent national or racial stereotypes is a cliche.

    “Maybe it has moments to it that are not perfectly realistic, so what, do you think its possible to make a perfectly realistic superhero movie? No. Is it possible to make one on a more realistic level? Yes.”

    But that’s my point exactly. A more realistic superhero movie would be fine. This is not it. At all.

    Look: the main villain is unrealistic both psychologically and physically. The good guys don’t react like real people. The plot depends on, among other things, turning mobile phones into sonar devices… somehow… It’s a profoundly silly movie.

    It’s clearly attempting to be more realistic, I grant you that. It has cold glassy skyscrapers, dull interiors and so forth. But quite apart from the implausibility of much of the plot, dialogue and character stuff, there’s a larger issue of tone.

    The Dark Knight doesn’t make any attempt to explain or justify or make more “real” any of its most silly, psychologically implausible or fantastical elements. It’s not that the movie has a one dimensional villain. That would be fine. It’s that it wants to pretend that it is being more realistic whilst having a one dimensional villain. It’s not that the movie wants us to accept that a millionaire would dress up as a cross between a furry and a leather fetishist, in order to fight drug dealers in car parks. It’s that it wants us to take this deeply implausible, goofy idea seriously, as if it represented something powerful and profound about the human condition.

    (It’s not that I don’t like Batman, by the way – Batman was a really fun idea, back in 1939. He was even better when he was called the Shadow! And the Batman cartoons back in the 90s were rather good, IIRC. But come on – as Alan Moore once put it, describing the Killing Joke, in which he did quite a good job of making Batman more realistic without creating horrible tone inconsistencies, Batman isn’t Tolstoy – and there’s a limit to what you can do with the character. You shouldn’t try to make one character serve every kind of drama.)

    As a contrast, think about Unbreakable. Not without flaws, certainly, but as a more realistic superhero movie it’s more successful than the Dark Knight. Why? Because it doesn’t have lots of jarring elements. It looks at what your life would be like, if you actually had superpowers – you might not know it, they wouldn’t help with your relationships etc. The powers that Bruce Willis’ character has are much more extreme than Batman – he is superhumanly strong, tough and can literally see into people’s hearts – but it’s handled in a more realistic way (by and large).

    “No film is ever “just entertainment” huh? Yeah, lets see you point out the depth and moral values of something like meet the spartans.”

    Haven’t seen it, couldn’t say. And something doesn’t have to be “deep” or have “moral values” to have more going on in it than just entertainment – every movie is a reflection of the values and ideas of the culture that creates it. Dumb movies tend to parrot those ideas incoherently or resort to cliche. But everything needs some kind of reference point – even the stupidest comedies. (e.g. in the original Scary Movie, which must be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen, there are jokes that try to play off misogyny, cliches, racism in horror movies etc.)

    Now that I come to think about it, even if the best selling movie of all time is “Ouch! My Balls!” or something equally cretinous, that in itself says something interesting about the society that produced it and consumes it. So there’s almost always something to say, assuming you have an interesting enough mind to be able to come up with it.

    Also, I’ve seen plenty of really stupid action movies and comedies in my time that have more going on in them than just their surface plot. Rambo is full of propaganda, for example. 300 is definitely using some deeper ideas.

    “So what if this movie had multiple themes, theres nothing wrong with that, you can make anything sound bad if you try hard enough, and thats what your doing.”

    Nope. I’m pointing out that it’s themes are incoherent, not just “multiple”. Honestly – what do you think it was saying? About anything?

    (To me, it seemed to get some of its ethics from Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns”, but mingled awkwardly with bits of Moore’s “The Killing Joke”. I got the impression that Nolan was basically too smart for Miller’s repackaged fascism and contempt for ordinary people, but sort of wanted to use some of his lines anyway. Who knows?)

    As for “you can make anything sound bad…”? No, not really. In fact, it’s probably easier to fool yourself into thinking anything is good, if you try hard enough – the Matrix Sequels, the Star Wars prequels… they all have their ardent defenders. To point out a flaw, you have to think for yourself, not just accept the marketting hype. To say that something is brilliant, you just have to say, over and over, some variant of “just switch off your brain”, “it’s just entertainment” or some other lame excuse.

    I’m not really concerned to convert die-hard fans. I think people who loved the Dark Knight will love it regardless of what I say. But I quite enjoy working out my thoughts and this whole discussion has mostly served to clarify and firm up my opinion on the Dark Knight. It’s not a bad film, but it is a pretty thoroughly mediocre one.

  109. Splatwoman, on August 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 am Said:

    Suggestion:

    Old Man’s line: “The doctors tell me you’re in agonising pain right now… ”

    LOL! Who talks like that?

  110. Jimmyboy, on August 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 am Said:

    “Look: the main villain is unrealistic both psychologically and physically.”

    how? in what way was the joker unrealistic? The guy was a pyschopath with (judging by the fact he enjoyed batmans beating) sado-masochistic tendencies. Those people do exist, its not unrealistic. Physically? how? he didn’t do anything that any normal person couldnt do. Truck flip? people do walk away unscathed from accidents like that. Scars? glasgow smiles are a known method of torture.

    “one dimensional villain?” he’s a psychopath. which is a fairly absolute condition, hence the absolute portrayal. but its not like he was totally non dimensional. The whole monologue on chaos gave us an inkling of what was motivting him. Unless by one dimensional you mean you wanted an origin story, in which case they gave you two (reference to the killing joke where the joker says “if im gonna have a past, id prefer it be multiple choice). it would be less realistic if the movie tried to give the joker a second dimension because hes an absolute psychopath. someone whos insane like that is fairly one dimensional.

    “deeply implausible, goofy idea seriously,” the idea of batman, first and foremost, is that he is a vigilante. the bat is just meant as a symobl for criminals to fear. its not a goofy idea, vigilantes have been around for a long time and still do exist. is this meant to be profund? yup. gone baby gone is one recent example of an excellent movie which examined vigilantes. and there are tonnes of them out there (not all good ones, but i digress) the question tdk is asking is: where do vigilantes have a place in society? Do they have a place at all? I it okay for people to tke the law into their own hands?

    “it’s just that the “council” of criminals sitting around, especially when they all conveniently represent national or racial stereotypes is a cliche.”

    Gotham city is judging by movie and comic material, a pretty grim place with a high crime rate. The fact that gngs would form along the basis of race isnt unbeleivable (italian mafia being a case in point). In a city like gotham, chances are that gangs would form along the basis of ethincity to stick together. And if gotham is a multi cultural city, its not hard to belive that at least the heads of the gangs would respresent various races. And the meeting they had was more a get together to hear what Lau had to say than a boardroom type Godfather deal. even so, there are recorded incidents where mob bosses have had pow wows, so its not as cliched as you make it out to be.

    the comparison with unbreakable doesn’t work either. this isn’t about a man with superpowers, its about a vigilante who just happens to have a taste for theatrics (which ive explained). TDK isnt meant to be a superher movie, its meant to be a crime movie with a comic book character in it.

    “I’m pointing out that it’s themes are incoherent”
    how? aside from the good and evil (stock and standard for most movie fare) theres the vigilantism aspect which ties in to good and evil with relation to the fine line between vigilante and criminal (the obvious example being batman to harvey). theres also the theme of escalation (ties back into the vigilante aspect). It’s not thematically incoherent, its actually quite in depth.

    Oh and to splatwoman: The doctors tell me you’re in agonising pain right now… ”

    LOL! Who talks like that?

    Im guessing it was kind of an awkward situation for gordon, so he decided a straightforward approach would be easier. but maybe he was just relaying the type of speech a doctor would use. so, to answer, doctors and guys who are in slightly awkward situations.

  111. John, on August 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am Said:

    Pinkpig

    You make a lot of claims in that long post but did not back up a single one. Jimmyboy asked the questions already.

    How is he one dimensional? Why is the plot incoherent? Etc….

    I can easily come on here and do what you did and pretend it is a valid point but if you don’t back up your claims how can we ever agree with you?

    EX:
    Rambo sucked
    Why?
    The character was unrealistic
    How?
    Nobody can fight off an army like that without resting or getting a drink.

    or as you have done

    Rambo sucked
    Why?
    Because Rambo is unrealistic!

    See the difference? (Rambo only used to make a point I am not comparing the two movies or saying anything for or against them)

  112. scully, on August 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm Said:

    This movie was exaggerated in its quality and even acting. So many films are better than TDK.

  113. Channe, on August 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Said:

    I had a feeling that this movie was going to be a let down, and I was right.

    As soon as I saw the school bus (which had just slammed into a bank in downtown Chicago, mind you) simply pull out and join a chorous line of other yellow buses – with the last one just far enough apart to let the Joker cut in line, I knew this movie was going to suck.

  114. Nathan, on August 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm Said:

    The movie was nothing original but a copycat of Heat,Godfather,Memento,Spiderman 2 plot and Spiderman comics.

    Ledger acted like Beetlejuice, they were too quick on the Two-Face story. If this was a superhero action film where were the action? It felt like Psych 101.

    Gyllenhaal complete freak and downgrade actress than Holmes.

    Bale looked gaunt and malnourished and his Batman sounds drunk.

  115. Robert Esmonde, on August 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm Said:

    I have a blog, and I posted an entry about the dark knight a while ago, I was wondering if you would take a look and link to it if it’s any good? Thanks.

    http://burstlimit.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B50C706BD2BFCEC4!322.entry

  116. Matthew Marx, on August 31st, 2008 at 10:36 pm Said:

    Maggie Glennyhal.

    That’s all I have to say.

    If nothing else, this movie sucked just because of her horrible acting and gross ass face. When Bale kissed her and told her she was beautiful I couldn’t help but scream: “Are you fucking kidding me, that bitch is a cow”

    It started getting good when she died though, true story!

    I feel a little bad for being so mean but she really didn’t fit this movie at all and casting surely could’ve done a better job than THAT.

  117. wildcats, on September 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm Said:

    Batman is less a detective. He’s gotten stupid and relies more on Fox on making his toys when the real Batman was so hands on with everything.
    I miss Holmes too.

  118. Earlofthercs, on September 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm Said:

    Matthew,

    people have different taste in women. I know people who think Maggie’s spunky. And surely you can critique a movie without being rude about a person?

    wildcats,

    do you even read Batman comics? Bruce has almost always paid Jack Edison to design and build his batmobiles and other equipmetn (along with Hiro Okamura AKA Toyman II and other engineers) though he does often work on them himself with repairs and temporary ungrades.

    And while its true that in the comics Lucious is a business man- CEO of Wayne Enterprises- only and not an inventor, combing the two characters into one makes sense in a movie for sake of expediency (dont want to have to have too many supporting characters)

    And designers at Wayne enterprise have been shown working on devices that eventually turn up on the Batmobile or in Batmans personal arsenal.

    So no, Batman isn’t completely `hands-on’ with everything; he has the skill to be but, it wouldn’t make sense from a crime-fighting perspective for him to use so much of his own valuable time at such pursuits.

  119. Jimmyboy, on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm Said:

    suggestions for inclusion?

    hmmmm, well i’d suggest you come up with better articles. Because this site is really a joke if “no more superman” and “fans are stupid” and “batman luvs harvey” is the best you can come up with. actually, most of the articles you’ve posted have been shut down (hard) in one way or another.

  120. McBeth, on September 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm Said:

    I wasn’t sure what website would be good for this since it
    wouldn’t fit into most board conversations, also that there’s
    too many fanboys that would jump on the thread and attack, but….

    I wanted to do something the likes of people participating in a
    game comparing the success of the film in the form of an analogy,
    metaphor, simile, or allegory; or whatever.

    I’ve seen The Dark Dark used as “I feel like the little child in The
    Emperor’s New Clothes. What’s going on here? Has everyone
    turned blind?” I’ve heard some say they feel like they’re in the
    Twilight Zone. I’ve seen some say they feel like they’re Invasion
    of the Bodysnatchers.

    It might be a fun game, can relieve the irritation in watching the
    blind following of fans, and users can show off their knowledge
    of films – or consequently – really giving it to the film by using
    examples of actual great films to make fun of this one.

    Thanks.

    Last suggestion, fixing the width problem for these posts. They’re
    all getting cut off on the right-hand side.

  121. shiftkey, on September 6th, 2008 at 2:56 am Said:

    I’m too lazy to write an original post here, so I’m just gonna copy & paste some posts I made about this subject at Reddit:

    Here’s a question: why are we expected to believe that the Joker’s plans to manipulate the public to turn against Batman and each other, thus proving his point that we’re all inherently selfish, would work when the exact OPPOSITE is what happened in real life? Look what happened right after 9/11! Did we all freak out, rip out each other’s throats and automatically listen to what Bin Laden said? NO! EVERYBODY was all patriotic, red-white-and-blue, United-We-Stand, etcetera etcetera. Nobody is going to buy into something like that, yet NOBODY in Gotham calls out the Joker for trying to make people hate Batman? Not a single one? Come on. :/

    And here’s another good question, why didn’t anyone in that movie think to take Joker’s beliefs that people are inherently selfish and disloyal and use them against him? Why didn’t Batman disguise himself as Matches Malone and infiltrate the Joker’s organization? It’s stupid to just expect people to believe that a world-reknowned martial artist/detective/ninja/whatever is just going to bumble about with his thumbs up his ass while a cheap juggalo ripoff decides to kill his friends and blow his city to kingdom come with no real resistance what-so-fucking-ever. It’s disingenuous to the character. Batman’s the kind of person that finds someone’s weakness and exploits it like an intern in the White House. That’s what he does; that’s ALL he freaking does. Come on.

    Hell, why didn’t anyone just bribe enough people/pull strings to find out who was working for the Joker and pay them to take him out? You can’t seriously expect us to believe that, assuming Joker’s point is true, that everybody in hell and creation would follow him like lemmings off of a fucking cliff yet everybody will stab Gordon, Batman, Dent et al in the back at the drop of a fucking nickel. Things don’t work that way. Someone would squeal eventually. EDIT: Yes, I’m aware of the fact that no one in the mob was intimidated by Batman and wouldn’t talk to him, but that doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t do something.

    Why would Batman or Gordon or ANYONE seriously expect the public to believe that a guy who runs around pretending he’s Dracula and stalking criminals in the night would kill someone in the middle of the goddamned DAY? Especially with a tiny pissant revolver, even though everybody knows that he doesn’t use weapons like that, let alone kills people.

    How do those two clowns seriously expect the truth not to come out? Anybody with any goddamned sense at all and more than three brain cells that haven’t been fried with fear gas in their empty fucking heads will figure out something is up. What about the bartender at the place where Wuertz was murdered? Do they seriously think he’s not gonna take the tape from his security cameras, run to the press and make a quick buck? What about Gordon’s wife or son? The son was obviously concerned, nobody seriously thinks he isn’t gonna go against the word of his father and try to do something to help his hero?

    Don’t even get me STARTED on the whole hospital fiasco.

  122. kendell, on September 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Said:

    I laugh that TDK didnt have a batcave for Batman. They destroyed the batmobile and Batman was so lazy and easily gives up when he cant find the joker he just spies on wireless communications of the citizens.
    Maggie inferior to Katie Holmes.

  123. Earlofthercs, on September 7th, 2008 at 4:32 pm Said:

    shiftkey,

    TDK is set 6 months after Batman’s first appearance in Gotham- like Year 1, Long Halloween, Dark Vitctory etc.- not `10 years’ like in the normal monthly issues.

    The people of Gotham, except for a single citezens group, don’t know what to make of this knew vigilante

    You’re forming your opinion based on all you know about Batman, and the Joker etc, forgetting that the characters in the movie don’t have all the insdier information you do (seeing the world from the godlike perspective of the outsider/viewer).

    And yeah, no, I don’t think a bartender who saw a orrupt cop who got paid off by the mod to set up the district attourny would run to the media with a security tape. I think he’d destroy the security tape and try to forget he’d ever seen a thing. Unless he wanted to end up dead, or is just plain effing stupid.

    Kendell, the batcave was under Wayne manor, which burnt down and is under repairs. He’ll have it ready for the next movie (if there is one) again, this reflects a time period in the comics where Wayne manor was destroyed and Batman opperated out of the penthouse and sub-basement of Wayne Tower.

    Batman found the Joker a a couple of times during the movie, but for that end scene there was no time to use `normal’ detective work- it was a crisis situation, so he went with his backup emergency surveilance plan which- hello brother eye!- is completely in character for Batman and anyone who actualy READS THE COMICS or even, you know, PAID ATTENTION DURING THE MOVIE would know that.

    Ah, feels good to rant at someone else for a change.
    ;)

  124. phantasm, on September 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm Said:

    The bazooka scene was so cheesy. While the joker was easily the asset of this film he’s also a hindrance and his script and dialogue were really poorly written.
    Rachel and Batman falling off the building and smashing in the car would kill them but they were perfectly fine. I didnt buy the Troy movie with those cities fighting over Diane Kruger and this movie have Maggie Gyllenhaal. What a joke! She’s hardly compelling and never easy in the eyes. Katie stole her thunder on this one.

    The sonar is so against the U.S. constitution.

  125. Jimmyboy, on September 10th, 2008 at 2:42 am Said:

    “The sonar is so against the U.S. constitution.”

    Exactly why batman only used it as a last resort, and why Lucius fox wanted to resign after learning it had been developed. because they both belived that using it was morally reprehensible, but was neccessary to stop the joker.

    Oh, and on the maggie issue. number one, she looks fine. Am i saying she looks as great as katie holmes? no (though thats just my opinion). But her acting was fine and she looked fine.

    On the point about troy, rachel was never described as being in possession of the face that could “launch 1000 ships.” Just a woman with a fiancee and a childhood friend who was in love with her. Not beyond the realms of possibility AT ALL.

  126. RoberMD, on September 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Said:

    I haven’t gone through all the posts, but i’m sure most of my gripes with this overbloated overhyped POS ave been mentioned. But i’ll just mention two small problems I had with the film.

    #1) Why still use the bat signal? It’s 2008. And the movie is suppose to be more realistic, so maybe its more realistic that the entire city doesn’t know when batman is being called. Have some sort of special two way communications that private.

    #2)Why is Batman talking to Lucius Fox in that stupid voice when Lucius knows its Bruce? The voice is already bad enough. No need to drag it on in unnecessary situations.

  127. Jimmyboy, on September 14th, 2008 at 3:25 am Said:

    @ RoberMD

    #1) Firstly, the bat signal strikes fear into criminals. Eg at the meeting between the chechen and the scarecrow, the gangsters are scared. Because the bat signals up. Secondly, the bat signal can be seen from anywhere in the city, which makes it quicker and more reliable to receive. Phones drop out, mail can be delayed, etc. also, you cant intercept or trace a giant signal. Mail and messages can be read, phones tapped, so on and so forth, which could result in the identity of batman being discovered. so the signal works out best for everyone. (well, not the crims, but you catch my drift)

    #2) can’t actually recall any scenes where he used the bat voice around lucius. that said, i saw the movie in early july, so i may have forgotten that part. Assuming there was such a scene, a possible reason:

    habit. hes been running around as batman for somewhere near 7 months, and whenever he wears the suit he uses the voice. so it could just be an automatic thing for him now, to use the voice when weaing the suit.

    Another poster on the site mentions that in one issue of the comics, Bruce starts using his batman voice when hes bruce and talking to alfred . something to do with the batman element of his psyche taking over. anyway, point is that eventually the voice becomes an automatic thing for him, to the point where he uses it around everyone. so its not unbelevable that when hes in the suit, hed switch into the voice regardless of who hes talking to.

  128. Ben, on September 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm Said:

    TDK tried hard to be a brainy movie when its operating on an empty skull. It was no inspiring and while Ledger was a great actor his performance is not something new just a different flavor from Nicholson.
    Bale needs to retire from the franchise because he looks tired and bored,his voice is getting worst too. Its sad that a newbie director in Iron Man already gave Nolan and Michael Bay a run for their money when it comes to real entertainment and superhero action movie. Maggie Gyllenhaal made Holmes look like a hot supermodel and Meryl Streel actress because she’s so bad in this movie.

    The saving grace in this movie were Ledger,Eckhart and Oldman. Without those guys the movie as whole was D.O.A.

  129. Jimmyboy, on September 15th, 2008 at 11:52 pm Said:

    “not something new just a different flavor from Nicholson.

    Well, no. Certainly a superior performance to nicholsons. namely because heath got into the character. Nicholoson changed it to be jack nicholson. but it was something new. for a start, you wont find any performance like ledgers. Was nothing like any other movie psycho. mannerisms, voice, movement…totally different to all other joker interpretations (and very different to most movie villains.)

    “Its sad that a newbie director in Iron Man”

    He’s not a newbie director. He’s been directing stuff since 2001. (Made was his first picture)

    “he looks tired”

    well, part of the plot is that hes getting tired of being batman and he needs to know his limits. So yeah, he shold look tired.

    “gave Nolan and Michael Bay a run for their money when it comes to real entertainment and superhero action movie”

    Okay, im guessing you didn’t like batman begins. because in terms of style, tone and action, TDK is very similar to Batman Begins (by no means a bad thing. Heck, TDK was the better one of the two). you wanted to see a superhero action movie? Well, the whole reason the batman reboots have been successful (and superior) is because they focus on the characters more than the spectacle.

    Which means no, they wont be like Iron Man or Transformers (the one good thing michael bay has done). But its stupid saying that they failed at making a superhero action movie when thats not what they were trying to make. Kinda like saying Annie Hall needed more helicopters exploding. Or saying that Elephant needed more slapstick comedy.

    If you don’t want to eat chocolate cake, get carrot cake. Dont yell at the chef because you dont want chocolate cake.

  130. crow, on September 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am Said:

    This review is spot on why TDK is not the greatest movie ever…also from Venturebeat why only the fanatic Batmans are so in love with their movie and even tweaking the votes for TDK
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jul/28/dark.night

    So true that Iron Man less hyped was superior film than TDK.
    http://www.pajiba.com/the-dark-knight-vs-iron-man.htm

    I have many beefs with TDK too like the sonar,lack of action,Maggie,unnecessary cameo for the Scarecrow,the character development for this movie suffered and we barely even got to know Batman.
    Bale’s Batvoice is like the worst Dirty Harry impersonation. Some of my beefs are stated in the articles above.

  131. DKNIGHT, on September 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am Said:

    ok this movie is average at best. the good parts were the IMAX scenery, the “visible portions” of the action scenes and some joker lines; heck at points even the joker gets to be too much.

    the movie is average people; i can’t believe some can’t see that even now

  132. thelma, on September 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm Said:

    The remarkable special effects for this film is the Joker but Ledger was not really spellbinding. The Two-Face arc padded too long and the script overall for Bale,Caine,Freeman the whole gang was a letdown. Ive been more terrified with Silence of the Lambs and Exorcist than the Joker of this movie. Gyllenhaal inheriting the role from Holmes was so annoying and didnt help Holmes had chemistry and a better performance than her. BB didnt have much action except the cool training of Batman but TDK didnt really improve with the action either.

  133. DKNIGHT, on September 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am Said:

    TDK had two great action moment:

    turning the bike around on the wall

    hooking onto the plane from the building

  134. Mann, on September 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Said:

    What sucks about the Dark Knight are the hypnotized fans with this ludicrous overhyping this is the best film ever,Oscar acting by the cast, they are the best of everything. Its not and I find Batman Begins a more focused movie and captured my attention more.

  135. Brett, on September 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pm Said:

    This movie was not all that. The ending was boring and I didnt like the reasoning behind it. Im glad Maggie was offed because she’s ugly and cant act. Totally understand now why Holmes left this sequel. If I was the joker if Batman talks to me I would be laughing because he sounds wussy and ridiculous. The Wayne corp guy finding out about Batman’s identity was corny. The action was not spectacular when it was blurry, not much action and as a superhero action film I wanted Batman to be cool and super but I didnt see that or feel that.

  136. DKNIGHT, on October 1st, 2008 at 7:50 am Said:

    the wayne guy finding out about wayne didn’t need to happen

  137. phil, on October 13th, 2008 at 8:39 pm Said:

    Why were Caine and Freeman in this movie again? they could have saved lots of money cutting off the boring philosophy 101 crap. Bale was acting out like Bateman than Batman. Maggie = yawn. People laughed out loud when the joker called her beautiful. Nolan should not be allowed to do an action movie. He really knows nothing about it.

  138. Richard, on October 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm Said:

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought the movie sucked balls. It was over-hyped Hollywood toss.

  139. Dark, on October 29th, 2008 at 7:05 am Said:

    Five things that sucked:
    1. Rachel Dawes death: the initial blast would have pulled air from the vicinity, blowing the wind towards the explosion. Rachel’s hair moves away from explosion.
    2. At the end Batman’s ninja weapon should have torn joker’s face apart.
    3. WTF is the reason to “failing to save the villain” being OK in batman begins but not on the second movie? WTF?
    4. Joker is portrayed as if he is god or devil himself.
    5. What’s up with the batman’s fear of the dogs?

    Otherwise the movie was great.

  140. Chris, on November 1st, 2008 at 9:43 pm Said:

    I don’t know if this was already posted but can somebody please tell me the point of club scene. I never could figure that out. All of the sudden a conversation suddenly switches into the middle of an action scene with batman fighting in a club on his way to maroni under what looks to be a disco ball. Personally I don’t think that neon pink suits batman very well. And the whole scene was just pointless couldn’t batman just as easily picked him up when he walked outside? Did he have to fight under a pink disco ball? That scene really irritated me.

  141. guy, on November 12th, 2008 at 8:08 pm Said:

    This is from movie mistakes.com….It’s not technically a mistake but it is blatant stupidity…

    Why did the police not remove Joker’s makeup???

    They get his fingerprints, examine his clothing, his weapons…But they don’t think to remove his disguise to to attempt to identify him?

  142. Pinkpig, on November 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am Said:

    “John”:

    If you think that the statement “Batman is unrealistic” needs extensive justification, or really any justification beyond pointing at the source material, you clearly live in a much weirder universe than I do.

    A rich man decides to fight crime by running around at night, punching criminals. He does this dressed in a pervert suit because he was scared by bats as a child.

    Quite a lot of other posters in this thread have provided examples of details, in this particular movie, that stood out as ridiculous. I agree with most of them. But if you think that the larger concept of Batman is inherently believable… you are a very silly person indeed.

  143. Juan, on November 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Said:

    I was really disappointed with the dark knight. What hurt the movie the most was the ending. I mean, Batman wussing out and becoming a wanted man to protect harvey’s reputation? To me, that ruins any chance of a good sequel.

    This movie deep sixed the entire batman franchise. It couldn’t have sucked more if Guerrmo Del torro directed it. (Worse than Hellboy 2, crow city of angels, ghost world and Constantine combined! )

    HEY WARNER BROTHERS! BRING BACK JOEL SHUMACHER! HE DID A BETTER JOB ON BATMAN AND ROBIN THAN THE IDIOTS YOU HIRED FOR THIS ABOMINATION!!!! BRING BACK VAL KILMER TOO, WHILE WE ARE AT IT! BEFORE HE RUNS FOR GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO!

    (sorry about the all caps. I just had to get my point across.)

  144. Jason, on November 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm Said:

    Batman should have killed the joker sooner.
    cops were so stupid
    Bat’s body suit cant even protect Harvey from the fire
    downgrade Maggie from Katie

  145. hunter, on December 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm Said:

    While I don’t think this movie was actually bad, I have some major issues with it that bugged the hell out of me.

    1. It wasn’t a bad movie, just a bad Batman movie. After a good performance in Batman Begins, I felt that Bale (during the few times where he was actually the focus of the film) did poorly this time around as Batman. Not only that, but just about everyone else overshadowed him ( with the exception of Maggie G. ) and the focus rarely seemed to be about the actual Batman character. They should have just called it The Joker. Or maybe The Killing Joke because it seemed to take a few cues from that story arc as well.

    2. Maggie Gylennhall. She was terrible and was I happy when Rachel died. Plus, she looked haggard in this film.

    3. Yet another dumbass gadget. Batman Begins had that stupid BatShoePhoneFlyingRodentSummoningThingy. The Dark Knight had an equally stupid Nokia ad that him look retarded.

    4. Guns. BATMAN DOES NOT USE GUNS. EVER. If he did he would just be a cooler looking Punisher. Batman doesn’t use guns at all; not ones that collapse and shoot exploding snot bombs, and not ones attached to a dumbass motorcycle. No guns. Batman hates guns.

    5. The Bat-Pod (sigh). That thing was retarded as hell.

    6. Editing. This film was simply too damn long and would’ve been greatly improved by removing 15-30 minutes.

    That’s pretty much it. Like I said before, I thought it was an okay flick, but it really didn’t live up to the hype at all.

  146. Jac, on December 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm Said:

    I can accept that its your opinion for every one of those reasons besides number 4. What seriously is your point? If he did not use any type of gun-like mechanism whatsoever, then he wouldnt have the grapple gun would he? Batman has had guns on his vehicles for many many years. Also for number 5, Batman has had escape pods for his vehicles before, what was so “retarted” about this time?

  147. hunter, on December 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am Said:

    @ Jac: I was just pointing out that Batman traditionally has an extreme aversion to guns because of his parents being murdered with one in front of him as a child. True, the grapple is a staple but it’s never really used as a weapon as in the other cases I pointed out. It’s for that reason that he beats the hell out of the bad guys bare-handed or subdues them with some sort of Bat-gadget. As for #5, I just thought the whole transformation from Batmobile to Bat-Pod was dumb, especially when he ran it up the wall and did the 180.

  148. Jimmyboy, on December 6th, 2008 at 2:15 am Said:

    @ Hunter

    The point about batman using guns is a valid one, but i would classify the bomb shooting thing as being in the same class as the grapple gun. He’s not actually shooting it directly at people and using it to hurt them (like a normal gun). he’s just using it to place the bombs. and he’s not using the bombs to directly hurt people either, so it’s alot more like another one of his gadgets than a gun: hes just using it to make his life easier. And he has had guns on his vehicles before, as Jac pointed out.

    and the 180 bit was kick-ass

  149. Chris, on December 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm Said:

    I can see the point with an overuse of gadgets. It was like watching james bond in a batsuit. I wouldn’t have a problem with them so much if he hadn’t used so damn many in this movie. They could have cut down the usage of gadgets, at least a little bit. I absolutely hated the cellphone/sonar crap. That alone just completely destroys his credibility as a superhero. What happened to being a great detective? I think they should have focused a little bit more on that in this movie.

    By the way….They made the joker into a terrorist which was just plain stupid. Yeah sure, he should be a threat but from what I remember from the comics, he was never anything like that. So I agree with Hunter that it was an okay movie but not a very good batman movie. This movie is highly OVERRATED!!!

  150. chasm, on December 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm Said:

    YThe readers of this sight have some great suggestions. I however cannot come up with any because the movie was so slow and boring I dont even remember ANY details whatsoever. Iron Man was much better yet fell way under the radar, Death Race was even better than that but when an actor dies I guess that means the movie must then be liked by everyone and those who dont like it have no soul! I am sorry but it just sucked, The actors failed to keep my attention, the action was plotless and if you ask me michale bay (the worst filmmaker in history) could have done a better job.

    The first one was ok and the second was 2 dimensional crap!

  151. jackwalker, on December 10th, 2008 at 4:23 am Said:

    I think one of the dumbest things in TDK is the scene after the dog bite scene. Bruce’s arm is damaged and he is sowing up the wound. the dumb thing is that Bruce had changed out of his bat-suit into clean T-shirt and pants before taking care of his open and bleeding arm wound.

    In real life, a person would just take off or rip off the shirt they had on and repair the arm before changing clothes. The real life way is also the way the Batman Comics has it too. Batman in the comics is always shirtless with only the batsuit’s pants only on as he is repairing damage to his body. A classic image of the Batman Comics is Batman shirtless with only the batsuit’s pants only and bandaged up.

    So, the Batman is the comics’ first thought after being damaged is repairing the damage like a real person would do.
    The batman in TDK’s first thought after his arm is ripped open by Dogs is to put on clean clothes! WTF

    After seeing that scene, I pictured Bruce walking around the the Bat-hideway going “where is that black t-shirt and grey pants that I like” as he bleeds all over the place.

  152. jay, on December 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Said:

    i dont have a problem with the plotholes,the acting,the running time or most of the stuff you folks do.so why do i think the dark knight sucks? simple,its boring.much like many a film in the last few years batman has had all the fun drained out of it,make it darker..make it serious..make it realistic.all thats left its a cold film with no real heart,who cares what characters die?why is gotham city so bland?.nothing about this movie sticks in my mind,no scenes jump out.bland.dull.empty.

  153. jackwalker, on December 11th, 2008 at 8:07 am Said:

    Yeah, it is boring.
    last night I try to watch TDK to see again why i hate it and my wife fell asleep watching it. After she woke up she said it was pulling her to sleep because it was boring and just dumb. She even joked about how if she ever has problems sleeping, she would just watch TDK and it would put her to sleep in no time.

  154. dark knight is terrible!, on December 14th, 2008 at 1:10 am Said:

    I hype the hell out of this movie and got over 10 friends to go with me and about 3/4 threw the movie a few friends leaned over to me and said ”jesus this movie is terrible” we all felt let down

    and even then the ”joker” was fucking tettible
    and for whatever sad shit reason they fucked up two face and made him look like a half eaten bar ba que

    and dont get me started on batmans voice please get rid of the director and ”actor” that plays batman

  155. Earlofthercs, on December 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm Said:

    hunter, the bat-somming device in the shoe used in Batman Begins is taken from the comics. Batman has used it several times, most notably in “Batman: Year 1″ in a scene similar to the one from the BB movie.

    Likewise Chris, the Joker as terrorist angle has been used in the comics before too. In fact a variation on the filling two ferries with explosives scene is in “Batman: No Mans Land”.

    jackwalker, well he’s have to take off the suit to sew his arm propery, and if it wasnt bleeding profusly your first job would be clean, then disenfect and dry before sewing, so I didnt have a problem with him getting changed, but I guess if it bugs you, it bugs you. I certainly don’t find it boring, but as a reaction being `bored’ is one of the most subjective there is. I find football boring, which doesn’t mean the thousands and thousands of people who go to matches everyweek are somehow wrong.

    jay, I’ve been collecting Batman comcis since 1987 and I’ve heaps more backissues from before then, and they haven’t made it darker or more serious, they’ve just amde a movie as dark and serious as batman comics are normally written. But again, if that aint the Batman you like, it’s your taste.

    I don’t think the movie is overrated, I just think that people who like it, really like it. That doesnt mean that people who don’t like it are wrong. Although equating `I dont like it’ with `it sucks’ doesn’t really make sense, as it implies that everyone who does like it have invalid taste somehow.

    As a professional musician I can’t stand to listen to the music of Pink (for example), as I find those kind of pop/rock tunes simplistic and over-produced, but I also can tell the difference between a song I don’t like and a song that truly sucks… and she (and her team of song writers) doesn’t/don’t suck.

    And as someone who watches dozens of films a year, TDK flaws, and it does have flaws- from a writing/plothole/acting/effects/edditing perspective- are relatively minor compared to the bulk of action films of the last decade IMHO.

  156. DKNIGHT, on December 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am Said:

    batman should of punched the joker in the face and shut him up already. that’s the point of beating the villan, you beat him up, don’t have to kill him, a punch would have been nice

  157. Earlofthercs, on December 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Said:

    Batman beat Joker pretty hard in the interogation scene and it didn’t `shut him up’. As the cop said, some sickos will enjoy that (getting beaten) kind of thing! That was kind of the point of the film; how do you react to criminals, like the Joker, who doen’t remotely behave like a healthy, rational individual would?

  158. DKNIGHT, on December 19th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Said:

    BULLSHIT! ONE HARD PUNCH SHOULD OF KNOCKED THAT GUY OUT. THE WAY THESE PEOPLE MADE THE MOVIE ITS LIKE HE WAS MADE OUT OF ADAMANTIUM COME ON PEOPLE! ITS CALLED A SATISFYING PUNCH!!! A SATISFYING KNOCKOUT!!!

  159. Tatum Forshway, on December 20th, 2008 at 12:12 am Said:

    This is good stuff and both sides are hilariously right. But I didn’t think the new Rachel was ugly… oh well. Guess I have no taste in women : )

  160. DKKNIGHT, on December 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm Said:

    i’d do her!!! and batman shoulda still socked him one while he was dangling upside down that dang joker talks too much.

  161. Bob, on December 25th, 2008 at 7:01 am Said:

    So the Joker warns people not to use certain ways to leave the city.
    Then we see a shot of law enforcement scouring bridges and roads obviously for some sort of weapon.

    But no one thinks to check the ferries that people actually use to escape?

    No one is going to notice the many large barrels of explosives?

    Riiiiiiight.

  162. Peter Wilson, on December 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm Said:

    Ledger will not win the Oscar for supporting actor, IMHO. Here’s why:

    1. Overexposure. Dark Knight came out back in the summer, giving the media six months to seize on the Joker as the inevitable winner. Then in December something happened: Other movies came out – better movies – with more engaging characters and challenging roles. In January critics will have some real options to choose from in making their Oscar picks; Dark Knight won’t be the only DVD clutched in their hands as they review the year’s best.
    Which brings us to #2:

    2. Better Roles. Heath Ledger may have been brilliant as the Joker, but let’s face it – in the wider scheme of things it’s a trivial character in a mass market entertainment franchise. Valkyrie, Frost / Nixon, The Reader, Defiance, and probably at least six other great films came out this year that say something about the human condition, give us a new perspective on history or let us experience the world in a different way. Blockbusters are not Oscar material, nor do they deserve to be (Titanic being the sole exception).

    3. The Academy. It will be tempting to make history on Oscar night by giving out a posthumous award, and let’s face it – it’s a rare opportunity that only comes about once in a generation. But is it right to deprive a more deserving actor of recognition? Oscars should be awarded on merit, not sentimentality. I think the Academy will take the high road on this one.

    4. Typecasting. Thanks to media hype, Heath Ledger is now permanently typecast as a leering villian with bad makeup. This is unfortunate, because his work in movies like Four Feathers and Brokeback Mountain should not be forgotten. Handing out an improbable Oscar for the Joker will create an artificial standard that will ultimately diminish his other accomplishments. Yes, the man is talented – but this is the wrong role to be celebrating. Wait for Dr. Parnassus in 2009 – his final film – and then judge his entire body of work.

  163. YGO, on January 1st, 2009 at 7:11 pm Said:

    You say it is not realistic, but if I were to ask you, what is more realistic, Batman or X-Men, what would you say?

    Haters of TDK: X-Men
    Reason: Dark Knight sucked in my opinion. And X-Men is better. So X-Men is more realistic.

    People who enjoy TDK: Batman
    Reason: All of the X-Men have powers that could never happen, and battle villains that could never happen. Batman at least has semi-realistic characters.

    So…
    SPAM
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam
    Spam

  164. They Ruined Traditional Batman, on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 am Said:

    They ruined the traditional batman by turning him evil in the end. Batman isnt supposed to be evil hes supposed to be good. And wheres Robin and Bat Girl did they just mysteriously dissapear? The dialog was like one of the cheesy superhero action figures. It sucked! The joker is supposed to wear a simple suit and some well done white makeup. I also want katie back! And why did her character have to die now how is batman supposed to find a gf. Where is Cat woman! In batman begins cat woman lived cus she should have 7 lives left! How is Bat Man supposed to fall in love if his gfs keep dieing! And cat woman is awesome! She kiks ass! They need to use hallie berry tho she was the best cat woman ever. Cat Woman is my favorite movie ever!

  165. Fernando, on January 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Said:

    Hey man! nice place

    you should read the comics “NIGHTHAWK” from Marvel Comics (MAX)

    Nolan copy all the comic and the “killer clown” was inspired in this one: White Face

  166. TravestiClown, on January 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm Said:

    There is a mexican forum named Comicastle.

    http://www.comicastle.com/foro/

    It’s a very ridiculous place in which if you dare to post something against this movie you are automatically considered a troll, your ip’s are revised by the “professional” moderators, then if you are a man you are an idiot, if you are a woman you are considered a shemale trying to flame their precious threads.

    Moderators divided the discussion in two threads, one about praises, one about complaints, but the TDK defenders just trolled the complaints one in order it to be closed (note that moderators are defenders of TDK too), now there are just parises and if you complaint the consequences tend to be negative against you (also your comments are erased by moderators).

  167. jay, on January 21st, 2009 at 10:45 am Said:

    i think i figured out one of the main reasons i didnt enjoy TDK,christian bale.it actually suprised me because i loved him in american psycho but then i realised isnt he like that in almost every movie??maybe he played the hidden rage,steely emptyness so well in american psycho cus thats all he can play!!wouldnt it have been great to see a batman who on the death of the person he loved…reacted!check out his other films,same character diffrent suit.
    and need i say the same for morgan freeman?wise old black guy lends a hand despite reservations.

  168. LS, on January 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm Said:

    In response to the following TDK fanboy post on yahoo news http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ad/capress-090122-entertainment-20090122_oscar_nominations
    TDK Fanboy post
    - “Simple: Art = elitist pretentiousness. “We are better than you, so we decide what is important. Screw the common masses and what they like.” I defy anyone to come up with a definition of “art” or “artistic” that justifies films like THE DARK KNIGHT being left out of awards. ”

    My Response to TDK Fanboy post
    - “Art is about depth not pretense. If a work is just eye candy and lacks any real depth than it can’t be considered art. Tell me where is the depth in Batman? Where’s philosophical undertone, where’s the underlying idealology, wheres’s the hidden message, where’s the golden divide where 60% is shown the other 40% left to interpretation. From what I saw of Batman, it was just a commercial action film. Leaving nothing more for the audience to ponder about than say Transformers, or Spiderman.”

    My post was neither insulting nor untrue. But within minutes literally minutes. My post was removed by Yahoo staff. Leaving the original post stating that “All artists are elitists and pretentious.” in tact.
    The hypocracy, to think yahoo of all places has become something acute to a fascist regeme, where only praise of Batman is allowed and anything to the contrary is removed. It’s unbelievable, one must move to Syberia to say anything remotely bad about Batman.

    It’s quite sickening, how TDK is actually causing people to lose their right of speach. What happened to democracy?

  169. YGO, on January 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm Said:

    ^ lier.

  170. LS, on January 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm Said:

    Since my post on this site.
    Yahoo has felt inclined to remove the original TDK Fan post stating that all art is pretentious and elitist and that Batman was beyond art.
    Funny how they felt it was ok before.

  171. jackwalker, on January 25th, 2009 at 6:05 am Said:

    Heath Ledger’s Joker was not Oscar winning.
    The Joker was re-made for Ledger.
    Heath Ledger did not studied the character of the joker and become the joker.
    Heath Ledger played the role as just an crazy himself.

    If an actor played Nixon did not studied the role and played it as himself would he be up for an Oscar?
    NO!

    The character of the joker has been apart of our history since the 1940’s.
    If you are going to play the joker than play The Joker and not yourself acting crazy. The Joker of the Comics Books is more Crazy, more scarier, more ugly and more evil then the Crazy punk rocking Ledger in TDK.

    The Same goes for Bale’s “Bush” Wayne and dumb-down Batman.
    Bale, you are THE WORST BATMAN EVER!!!!!
    Even Clooney was better then Bale

    Nolan, You are the worst thing to ever happen to batman in the past 66 years.
    Even Schumacher was better then Nolan.

    Burton did two golden age of batman movies,
    Then, Schumacher did two silver age of batman movies (not the best of the batman’s eras, but is true to the ages of batman),
    People may moan about Batman Forever, Batman and robin, but it were far better then TDK.
    Batman and robin may have sucked but it was not boring.
    TDK is both suck even more then B&R and it was boring.

    All of the older Batman films (batman to Batman and robin) and actors in them are more up for an Oscar then TDK or Ledger.

  172. Sascha, on January 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm Said:

    Hello,

    the movie was not overrated. When I first saw this movie I noticed some irregularities and in some scenes the actors performed badly. But, and this is more important, the movie delievers a philosophy, which is an important lesson. The last two minutes of the movie alone CAN give you chills if you really feel the movie, especially when Batman says “Sometimes truth isn’t godd enough. Sometimes people deserve more.”
    Sure, this movie evidently polarize. Therefore, you (the movie haters) should respect the other side. If you build up such a site, give room for the other side, unless you think you’re opinion is the only one which is right and matters.

    I think “The Dark Knight” is great. You do not only have to watch out for flaws. Sometimes you have just to enjoy things as they were. Beauty is not everytime perfect.

    Best regards from Germany,

    Sascha.

  173. TDK-IO, on January 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm Said:

    What I don’t see anyone talking about as the biggest flaw in the film is the characterization of the Mob. These guys just sit back and let the Joker steal from them and at no point during the time he’s robbed five of their banks does anyone kill him. What the hell? When the Joker walks in on their meeting it’s totally implausible because he should already be dead long before this point in the story. It’s apparent the Joker hadn’t killed any of them in order to steal from them in the first place. Why would they need to hire him to do something they do themselves anyway? He’s just a man but Nolan characterizes him as all-powerful. To me, the Joker stealing from the Mob is the foundation of the plot and that in itself is implausible. There’s no way they would not have been on guard at their other banks after the first was robbed.

  174. TDK-IO, on January 26th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Said:

    I realize killing the Joker off would end the movie, but still…

  175. col, on January 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pm Said:

    “the movie delievers a philosophy”. er no it doesnt! its a blockbuster action film!,a film thats posing as intelligent and thoughtful when its devoid of any real meaning,that would be fine if people just admit it.if this film delivers a meaningful philosophy does spiderman?superman?x-men ect???
    as for saying redpect the other pro opinions you will find more negativity towards people who dislike the movie even when they give valid opinions in a decent way-see LS message above!

  176. Earlofthercs, on January 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pm Said:

    jackwalker; you’re a pretender- Ive got a 20 year run of detective comcis and batman, plus the batman archives and several other trades, and the Joker as portrayed in the movie matches at least several of the comicbook interpretations in many ways. The great thing about the character is that he’s always reinventing himself. Im not making excuses for inconsistent portrayels, because they always justify the changes as the happen. Heaths Joker to me read as a synthesis of his first two Golden Age appearances, “No Mans Land” Joker, “Laughing Fish” Joker, “Death In the family” Joker and “RIP” Joker. Not much “Killing Joke” or “Dark Knight Returns” Joker in there, but ah well- hard to squeeze 60plus years of characterisation into 2&1/2 hours.

    LS, Yahoo is a privately owned site, like this one, freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. They could delete your posts for any reason they like. Its their website not yours. Its like if someone invited you around to there house and you started smoking. They’re not infringing on your rights if they tell you to leave. If someone comes round to yourhouse and stops you complaing about the DarkKnight in person, then you’ve got a freedom of speech infringement.

    And TDK-IO, the mob aint infalible, they’re just people like any body else. But there was areason they didnt just kill the Joker outright; they were in the middle of a war themselves- The Russian/Americans vs the Italian/Americans vs the African Americans but ahd reached such a desperate point, suffering undert the wrath of Batman/Gordon/HarveyDents efforts to stamp out organised crime, that they were desperate and had called a truce to meet each other. It was in this atmosphere of ceasefire that the Joper appeared. Watch the Gotham Knight cartoons first then watch the movie again, and it may make more sense.

    It isnt a perfect film by anyone’s standards. Feel free to hate it or love it. But not understanding something doesnt make it stupid (or you stupid) universal understanding/commincation is an extremely difficult thing!

  177. LS, on January 27th, 2009 at 11:00 pm Said:

    Earlofthercs
    You make some good points. I guess yahoo does have the right to delete my post, but what bothered me was the hypocracy more than my freedom of speech. It was leaving an insult towards the arts and the arts community, while deleting my post. I guess since yahoo corrected their mistake I’m no longer sore about it.

    But I do feel that I should correct you on your later statement. I don’t think the people who hate Batman, hate it because they fail to understand it. Batman TDK is not Antonioni or Tarkovski, it’s actually quite shallow and easily understood, especially by those with the perception to call out it’s bluff. I think on the contrary, those who loath TDK, do so because they understand it a little too well. Most who hate the film, do so because they see through the feint attempt at depth and philosophy in what amounts to nothing more than the ultimate oxymoron in the history of cinema. It’s one of those rare films that ticks intellectuals the wrong way because it tries to have it’s cake and eat it too. Had I not been able to understand the film, I probably would have liked it a lot more. It’s one of the those films where when you see what it truely is there’s really nothing there.
    The film attempts to elevate itself into the relm of art by attempting to use cinema verite within the relm of comic book cinema, yet in doing so it no longers carries the surreal aspect of comic book cinema to begin with. Had the film actually succeeded in true cinema verite it would have been forgiven, but because the film had to still satisfy comic book fans it had to retain the unreal aspects of comic book cinema, in turn leaving a nasty trail of plot holes and horrible suspensions of disbelief that even the most verdant fans of comic book cinema cannot forgive. Thus in attempting to acheive art through commerce the film became neither, and lingered on the border of both spectrums where by it was neither accomplished as art nor commerce.
    The other annoying thing about the film is it’s poor feint at philosophy and depth. In this category it too lingers between comic book philosophy and real world depth, it never holds onto neither. It’s kinda like watching a Bernardo Bertolucci film directed by Joe Schumacher. Where the prospect for depth is there but never truely materializes. Everytime you think TDK is going somewhere with some philosophical undertone, it fizzles out with some ludicrous contradictions in plot and character.
    You see in the end, those who truely loath TDK are the ones who see it for what it truely is, a poorly made comic book film trying to pass it itself off as deep art, by using pretentious filmmaking techniques in a half hearted way. I’m sure there is a director out there who could have made a deep philosophically charged Batman with hints of cinema verite, but Nolan is not the guy.
    You see people really get upset when they feel that they have been lied to, and Batman TDK is the ultimate con. It never holds true to any of it’s core elements, it delivers poor action for an action film, poor artistry for an art house film, poor depth and philosophy for meaningful cinema. That’s why people who hate TDK hate it with such a passion, because they too, like me feel like they have been swindled.
    If there’s anything that’s constant in great cinema, is it’s honesty towards itself. A film must never petend to be something that it isn’t. TDK pretends to be everything that it isn’t.

  178. Earlofthercs, on January 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm Said:

    Yeah, Ive no problem with you being pissed off by hypocrisy! Glad you’re over it though, pissed off isn’t a fun state to be in.

    Anyways…

    So its the failure to meet your expectations that disapointed you? I guess thats why I don’t hate the film; I expected a `faithful in spirit’ adaptation (alternative universe) retelling of a year 2 era Batman (Long Halloween et al) and thats exactly what I got. Half-arsed philosophy, shaky action and all!

    It helps that I disagree with the definition of art it looks like you use too (if I read you correctly). Im one of those `art is in the intention’ kind of guys, I actually think TDK is pretty close to the film Nolan was trying to make, definitely has some rushed editing and shoddy scene changes, but it felt pretty consistent in tone from go to woe to me. If you dont consider that type of film art, but merely one that has pretentsion of art, I guess we’re always gona disagree. But while it wasnt completely sucessful I dont find any inherent problem with his attempting to do the styleistic combination of cinema verite & blockbuster as you say. I dont think the film is pretending to be something it isnt, Momento and The Prestige are both endevors in slight of hand popular meets artsy cinema as well, and I enjoyed them too. Maybe I’m just easily entertained and difficult to piss off. (though roger on this site managed too! But we made up eventually).

    Again, I guess it especially helps that all my favorite Batman (and other) comics are the `played as real even when things get fantastic’ ones, like Batman, Iron Fist, Fables, Fell, Scott Pilgrim, North World, Lupine, etc Indeed, the attempt Nolan has made is to me exactly what makes TDK a more faithful comic book adaptation than prior Batman films. (Burton made two Burton movies, and shumaker re-made the television show with a worse script and bigger budget). TDK is still not as good as Mask of the Phantasm, and it might not be everyones ideal of `Batman’, but I certainly dont think it sucks.

  179. LS, on January 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm Said:

    In the end I hope Chris Nolan would just stop trying to have the best of both worlds. It’s starting to really get on people’s nerves, the way he tries to juggle art house cinema with commercial blockbusters is his biggest failing. He got it right with Momento, and since then has tried to cash in those million dollar pay cheques while still pretending to be some high art film director.
    Nolan needs to get over himself and learn a little from his mentors like Speilberg and Soderbergh whom both excel in meaninful cinema as well commercial. Yet they never try to merge the too with disgusting results.
    Keep your blockbusters, entertaining, and work on your personal art house projects on the side. Because in cinema you cannot compromise, a film must be true to it’s form, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too.
    Best example would be Steven Soderbergh will do one “Ocean’s” film every few years to keep himself in the good books with the studios and then disappear for a few years to work on something like “Che”.
    Nolan needs to learn this.

  180. Earlofthercs, on January 28th, 2009 at 6:40 pm Said:

    Yeah, like I said, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one then. Film makers (or any other artisans/artists/craftsmen/writers whatever) can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned, none of this and `never the twain shall meet’ for this little black duck. Genre distinction is a useful communication tool for a critic (or a friend) to describe something to you, but shouldn’t have anybaring on the actual production of new work. If I wana write industrial electoric orchestrial blues songs for children I will, and if they become popular, good luck to me. If Nolan wants to use some arthosue techniques to flavour his blockbuster, or some bluockbuster sepcial effects to spice up his indie film, well that’s his call I reckon (accepting producer approval of course). Wether any one- you, me, the masses- enjoys (or responds, to use a more open critical term) the results is another matter entirely.

  181. LS, on January 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm Said:

    I guess you have a point. Nolan can do what he wants, it’s his life and his films and plus they do turn in a fair some in box office. So if the equation works good for him. I’m just trying to explain why sites like this exist.
    If there’s hate, it must be grounded in reason. I’m just trying to point out why so many people hate this film as they do.
    But in the end who am I to judge.

  182. Earlofthercs, on January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm Said:

    You’re an individual with every right to judge as another, and I appreciate the attempt at explaining the hate, which had (till your help) kind of baffled me as much as the unabashed fanboy love. I guess people on `both sides’ have to realise that love doesn’t equal `good/awesome’ and hate doesn’t equal `bad/sucks’. But there are plenty of reasons to dislike the movie, none that effect me too much, but they’re there. As for this site, the dude’s made some good points, but Ive never seen him own up to being called out on his own mistakes (like how body armor works regarding balistics vs puncturing pressure) but its his site, so I guess he gets an impunity pass just like yahoo! Cheers LS, thanks for the discussion.

  183. TDK-IO, on January 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pm Said:

    Earlofthercs:

    And TDK-IO, the mob aint infalible, they’re just people like any body else. But there was areason they didnt just kill the Joker outright; they were in the middle of a war themselves- The Russian/Americans vs the Italian/Americans vs the African Americans but ahd reached such a desperate point, suffering undert the wrath of Batman/Gordon/HarveyDents efforts to stamp out organised crime, that they were desperate and had called a truce to meet each other. It was in this atmosphere of ceasefire that the Joper appeared. Watch the Gotham Knight cartoons first then watch the movie again, and it may make more sense.

    __________________________________________
    I can respect your comment. However, that’s just it. Nolan, not some tie-in, should have shown the in-fighting within the Mob, and the buildup of just how the Joker was able to gain leverage over them. Why leave it to some animated short to try to fill-in the gaps? From what I can tell, Nolan didn’t really have any involvement with those shorts. I think it was lazy of WB and Nolan to do it this way. Everyone who went to see this film doesn’t regularly keep up with the comics or know about Gotham Knight. I realize there was a similiar tie-in that was done when the Matrix films were out, but I didn’t need to see that to follow the story in those films. A tie-in still doesn’t explain why the Mob did not defend their money regardless of their factions. Early in the film, Commissioner Gordon had a picture of the Joker taken from the bank’s surveillance camera. If he had a photo from the bank’s surveillance then someone from whichever bank he robbed knew this is what the Joker looked like. We’re still talking about a gang of violent men vs. one man. They may be infallible but there is still strength in numbers. The same should be said about how the Mob responds to Batman. Batman got Falcone (the Italian/American) in the first film so it appears the other factions didn’t consider that they could be next on Batman’s list. In my mind, a truce should have been made and an effort to find Batman’s identity at the point that Batman got Falcone because he would become a threat to the rest of them.

    There’s also no sense of time in TDK. What the Joker accomplishes is something that would have taken him several years to do. He would have first needed to scope the police department for years in order to outmanever them the way he does, or had been formerly employed in the police department to know how they work. The hospital explosion and rigging the ferryboats would have taken an equally long period of time yet everything appears to happen in a short period of time.

    Like I said, I respect what you have to say but it seems as though everyone–with the exception of the webmaster for this site–is missing the main point that Nolan’s intention was to bring the Batman character into actuality. He doesn’t do a good job with that in this film. To more aptly describe how I feel about this film is extreme disappointment.

  184. Mar-vell, on January 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm Said:

    Have you noticed that Joker in this movie look like exactly Brandon Lee in “The crow”, the same make up, the same acting game, the same role, the same haircut, it’s funny to see that fans want heat ledger for the oscar for the joker role, despite that Nolan have just copy “The crow”.

    See yourself:

    http://imagesource.art.com/images/-/Brandon-Lee—The-Crow-Photograph-C10104025.jpeg

    http://jameslogancourier.org/media/Music%20and%20Movies/20080801-ledger-joker.jpg

  185. Gordon, on January 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm Said:

    I think there needs to be some clarification between the terms “I Liked” and “I Didn’t Like” vs. “Good Film” and “Bad Film.”

    First of all – and this is really so obvious, it should go without saying – people are free to “like” whatever they want. And, of course, the opposite is true, too: People are free to “dislike” whatever they want.

    However, it is possible (as so many people here have proven) for a person to “like” something that is considered “bad” by many others – and – again, vice versa – to “dislike” something that many consider to be “good.”

    Now, Like and Dislike are easy. You either Like something – or you Don’t. Let’s put this to a test. Think of something you Like……..okay, now think of something you Dislike……There. Wasn’t that easy?

    But Good and Bad are more difficult. Many people think that if you LIKE something, that must mean it’s GOOD, while something you DISLIKE is therefore BAD.

    This isn’t necessarily so – and it’s time for people to start having the balls to admit it.

    I’ll go first:

    I LIKE Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’”. And this is, in many ways, a BAD movie. From the horrible performances handed in by Keeanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, to really bizarre choices in Production Design and Interpretation to Continuity Errors and that God-awful “Butt Wig” they forced Gary Oldman to wear….all of these are examples of how someone could say this movie is “Less Than Good.”

    But that being said – I still Like it. Perhaps it’s Oldman and Hopkins’ performances, perhaps it’s the fact that it was the first movie to ever try and follow the structure of the original novel (which was written in the form of journal entries, letters and telegrams) – whatever the reason, the things about “Dracula” which were Good, made up for the things that were Bad about it enough for me to Like it.

    Now, let’s take the Dark Knight. The same rules apply. People are still free to Like and Dislike what they want, right? So why is it that when someone says they Dislike this movie, many of those who say they Like it practically shit themselves with rage?

    Many of these rabid fans insist that the Dark Knight is “THE BEST MOVIE EVER” – which it isn’t. Nope. Not even close.

    What I want to start hearing from these Fans is a little bit of honest evaluation when they describe this movie. No more of this hype and hyperbole that demands that all those who disagree be shouted down. And no flagrant denials and excuses for “problems” in this film that keep it from being even REMOTELY “good” on any kind of rational level.

    I have yet to hear a Fan say, “I loved this movie” without following it up with “….although I thought the fight scenes were badly shot”…. – or – “….but Christian Bale was terrible….” – or – “…the dialogue was boring…” And I see an awful lot of fans who are actually FILLING IN THE BLANKS when people ask questions like, “What was all that business with – ” (again, fill in the blank). People shouldn’t have to get films EXPLAINED to them by their fellow Audience Members.

    At least, not GOOD films.

    “The Dark Knight” is PLAGUED with “badness.”

    The Storyline was incomprehensible.
    There were too many characters who feature prominently in almost every major plot point.
    The casting was lop-sided and “unbelievable.” (Over-the-top, veteran Actors who have PROVEN how good they are alongside sub-par “celebrities” who just can’t compete).
    There are too many SCENES – jumping from one place to another, one sub-plot to another, back and forth and here and there – and almost EVERY scene seemed to be cut off before it was done talking about or showing whatever it was there for in the first place.
    The Script was horrible – and possibly even non-existent, in the first place. I honestly do believe that the Nolan Brothers simply cobbled together an almost endless string of non-sequitor shots and conversations merely based loosely on Davd S Goyer’s undeveloped and lackluster story. And it is clear that NONE of them have ever actually read an eniter comic book or graphic novel about Batman.

    All of these elements add up to one thing: “The Dark Knight is a “BAD” movie. It’s okay if you want to like it – for whatever base reason you choose. But at least have the balls to admit that – as films go – this one falls far short of being “Good.”

    - Gordon

    P.S. I challenge anyone to actually pick a single scene in this movie and point out its Strengths – either Technically, with the use of Lighting, Sound, Effects, Directing or Acting – or Artistically – in any of those same areas. I guarantee you that I can show you – frame by frame, if necessary – exactly how this movie FAILS across the board.

    I’m not just saying this as a fan of Batman, but as a fan of movies, in general. And remember, I’ve already admitted that I LIKE movies that can be classified as BAD, so I have truth on my side. Let’s be honest and analytical. But if you just want to blindly follow the hype, then this is not a conversation for you.

    G

  186. L.S, on February 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm Said:

    TDK was written by David S Goyer. One of the worst writers/directors working in Hollywood.
    How a good film can come from the hands of David S Goyer is beyond me?
    You’d think if Nolan really wanted to make deep philosophical Batman film, he would have hired a real writer as appose to someone like Goyer.
    I’ve read free comics from cereal boxes with more depth than Goyer’s work.
    Nuff said.
    Anytime someone says that TDK is greatest film ever made just remind them that it was written by Goyer and the argument ends.

  187. Jordan, on February 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm Said:

    How about the fact that joker used mental patients to conduct elaborate terrorist acts, stupid.

  188. Earlofthercs, on February 4th, 2009 at 10:25 pm Said:

    Gordon, I didn’t think Keanu was that bad in Dracular. His performance seemed like a fairly accurate rendition of the stiff and confused Johnathon Harker from the book to me.

    Anyways, I think many of your grievances have already been addressed on this site by myself and some of the other (addmittedly few) considerate TDK advocates. (such as Jac and jimmyboy. Although all three of us have got a bit terse at times. Its hard to always keep a level head, I’m sure you’ll grant me).

    Now, Ive been collecting Batman (and other) comics in unbroken runs for more than 20 years, and have dozens of trades predating that besides. Christian Bale played the `year 2′ era character, with hitns of other notable incarnations of the batman (along with his own nessasary take, given the change of medium) almost to a T. And I’d place cash money on Goyer and the Nolans having read more complete Batman comic books/graphic novels than you.

    I thought the fight scenes were well shot, not as good as Bourne maybe, but far from the mess some (possibly unobservant? lazy? inexperienced?) people say they were.

    And I certainly didnt think the plot was complicated or incomprehensible (but then again Morrison & Ellis are my favorite comicbook writers, so I’m used to multiple plot threads!) and would have no problem sumerising it if you need me to. I couldnt see a single thred that wasnt essential and didn’t add something to the narrative in fact (then again, as I said before, Ive been reading comics- serialised ongoing multli-plotted fiction- for more than 20 years).

    my reading of the film, many of the supposed plot holes listed on this site are merely misunderstandings, and have been answered with little difficulty or reaching by other posters on this site and others if you care to look (“the batman/rachel out the window, Joker and, mostly unconscious gang, at the party harvey in the closet what the?: being the most notably exception. Yep, thats a hole and it’s not completely alone, but its not an unforgivable one, in my mind, as it isn’t beyond the realm of imagination for a viewer to fill in the gap themselves, something comicbook readers, or fans of modernist literature, have to do all the time, given nature of our favorite medium).

    And, so yes while I certainly wouldn’t call TDK flawless (particularly in sound production granted) I’ve never seen a film to earn that particular destinction. However the Dark Knight certainly fits my definition of `good’- it matched my expectations, it had a sigular tone from start to finish, and came close to fulfilling the stated goals of its writers, director and actors; in that it was the most faithful (in spirit) and easily the most `comic booky’ – in that it tried to present unrealistic events with a straight `this is real in this reality’ face, the way most batman comics do- live action Batman film to date.

  189. Earlofthercs, on February 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm Said:

    Jordon,

    mental patient does not equal incompetent and I hope you’re not sugestion otherwise?

  190. Earlofthercs, on February 4th, 2009 at 10:32 pm Said:

    LS,

    I thought better of you, what a ridiculous argument!

    “He’s bad therefor he couldnt have written something good”??? What the?

    By that logic I refuse to belive Robert Johnson was a great blues guitarist, since early reviews state he used to be bad. Thenonios Monk’s first few performances were generally considered to be artisitic failures (even by Monk himself) does that mean his later albums cant possibly be good?

    You can use a writer’s track record to help predict the quality of their future work, but you cant say that because his prior track record was less than stellar that that somehow prooves that his most recent work couldn’t possibly be any better.

  191. Earlofthercs, on February 4th, 2009 at 10:36 pm Said:

    TDK-IO

    Im not saying that watching gotham knight is essential to understand that point, I only got around to watching it a little while ago myself, I thought the movie itself made the fact that the various groups were all udner pressure and working together under duress perfectly clear, but thought the extra available background information may make the nesessary closure easier in the viewers mind.

    And again, I didnt think there was any problem with the sense of time… but then again, I read alot of comics and are used to building a working timeline in my own head! (its a Nabokovian thing).

  192. L.S, on February 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Said:

    Earlofthercs

    Goyer is the Uwe Bow of writing in hollywood. He not simply bad, he’s horrendous.
    Goyer’s writing is one step above free cereal box comics.
    Generally I wouldn’t judge a person previous work to their present work, but TDK was a horrible screenplay, it was Nolan’s chink in the armor. Had TDK been written by someone who actually knows how to write, it may have been a much better film.
    Big mistake for Nolan to have trusted Goyer with his film. Nolan should have just written the film himself.
    Just take a look at Goyer’s track record, the man ruins every film he write. He single handly ruined Wesley Snipes career.
    There isn’t a single thing positive that I can say about Goyer’s work.

  193. L.S, on February 5th, 2009 at 7:30 pm Said:

    Just look at Goyer’s latest film “The Unborn” only Goyer could think of such a stupid title for a film. The title sounds like something that a 6 year old would make up.
    The film has a average IMDB rating of 4. That’s 4 outta 10. How could Nolan have been conned by this guy.

  194. MBK, on February 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm Said:

    hahahahaha LS i think you are right on. i think you have single handedly pinpointed the core problem with TDK: a terrible screenplay

  195. The Buddha, on February 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pm Said:

    one pan that you missed last summer

    http://moviesintofilm.com/dark_knight.htm

  196. Earlofthercs, on February 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm Said:

    Dude, blade 1 and 2 temporarily saved wesleys already flagging career. 3 was terrible, granted. But still, seriously, its a ridiculous argument to make that you can somehow assess a screenplay by the track record of the writer. U can make a pretty good bet, but ultimately a work rests on its own merits. I think TDK was a good screenplay (even though I agree, that goyer hasnt written many other good one’s and that so far he’s a terrible director), but you dont, and Im fine with that.

  197. Earlofthercs, on February 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm Said:

    The Buddha,

    Dude flat out says in his review:

    “But, as I began to say, I would not, in my disdain for comic books (and for the adults who read them), have conceivably had any interest in The Dark Knight”

    So we cant even really begin to take his review seriously- to much anti genre bias going in.

  198. MBK, on February 13th, 2009 at 9:27 am Said:

    was blade anything more than a summer action movie? was the dark knight? its not a masterpiece film; its just a summer action movie—enough said.

  199. Jimmyboy, on February 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Said:

    MBK,

    Earl ain’t saying blade was anythng more than a summer action movie. He’s saying it saved Wesley’s career. Which it did. (On a side note, it was also damn cool)

    But The Dark Knight was more than a summer action movie. Hold it up next to, say, Eagle Eye. Better acted, better directed, better screenplay (much better) and deeper thematically.

    Is TDK a masterpiece? Well, time will tell really. Most masterpieces are only recognised as such after their release. But its a damn fine movie regardless

  200. Earlofthercs, on February 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm Said:

    Co-signed.

  201. MBK, on February 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm Said:

    hahahaaaaaa you basically said it was a masterpiece without saying it. IT IS NOT. IT IS JUST AN INDEPENDENCE DAY FILM.

    and guess what? IDEPENDENCE DAY HAD A BETTER PLOT

  202. georgeboy, on February 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm Said:

    ironman is better

  203. Earlofthercs, on February 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm Said:

    MBK, do you mean it’s a film like Independence Day, using that’s a synonym for blockbuster? Assuming that’s what you mean, well, really there’s no inherent contradiction in the terms `masterpiece’ and `blockbuster’, a film doesn’t have to be a drama or art house or `serious’ or anything to be a masterpiece. It can just be very well made/written/successful in its endeavours.

    I don’t happen to CURRENTLY think TDK is a masterpiece (I co-signed to Jimmy in the `time will tell’ and `damn fine movie’, in its position as a well made summer blockbuster) as I believe the term requires something to be practically flawless (and to be the work of a master- I think Nolan’s becoming a master, I don’t think he is one yet. But then again, I can only think of a handful of current filmmakers that are.) I think TDK has flaws, though I don’t believe them to be anywhere near as major as the webmaster or his supporters (go through this site carefully, you’ll find many objections and so called flaws very simply explained away as misunderstandings on the viewers behalf. And no, its not up to a director to make a film completely easy to be understood by everyone. People- as a whole- think too differently, and have different tendancies of observation, for that to be possible or even desired). In fact its flaws are diminishing further and further in my estimation the more I think about and discuss the film.

    I mean, think of fine art. Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling is a masterpiece, and it’s serious and grand and weighty… but Toulouse-Lautrec’s Moulin Rouge posters are masterpieces, and they’re advertising for a strip joint. The work of the French impressionists was hated by art critics of the time as being hasty, ugly, unskilled… and loved by the public and eventually art critics came around. But now, with the work SO mass produced, allot of the weight of the original impressionist techniques is lost, and as an art form impressionism seems very dated and it is almost impossible for someone to use the style in an effective manner today. And look at more modern (and post modern artists) work often reviled by the public while applauded as masterpieces by artists and art fans.

    All I’m trying to say is that `masterpiece’ is a VERY subjective term and almost always only sucessfully applied well after a works production. I think it may too soon for people to proclaim it a masterpeice, but I certainly think its to soon to proclaim that it sucks.

    georgeboy,

    you like Ironman more. There is a difference.

  204. camaro, on February 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am Said:

    That would make sense but the movie is loved by almost everyone (crtics and the public) save a select minority that can see through the smoke. One good method actor and a couple good action scenes (the motorcycle turn around and jump back into the plane) are not good enough to make this movie a “masterpiece.” I agree with this site. It doesn’t suck, but maybe we need to say it sucks to counterbalance all the hysteria around this film… that has mysteriously faded away to boot.

  205. Earlofthercs, on February 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm Said:

    camaro,

    Film critism in not Toaism, (we dont need to create more Yin energy to counterbalance the Yang energy or some such) saying something sucks doesnt somehow mystically balance out other people saying something’s teh awsome.

    That’s like saying we need far right politicians to somehow balance out far left politicians, when ultimately what would be better is that individuals form independant balanced and informed viewpoints as close to the objective truth as possible on any given single issue.

    The only logical recourse in any situation is is to analise the available information and form an opinion based solely unpon that, not on what other people think. And given that enjoyment of a film is always going to include a multitude of subjective factors, objecting bold faced towards others’ opinions as merely that of those who cant `see through the smoke’ is a bit disengenius.

    You’ve admitted that the mass hysteria has died down… I dont think this site contributed to that in anyway, its presance didnt somehow cause people to `see the light’ and realise TDK isnt `all that’ on, the contrary this site seemed rather to further cement most TDKs supporters opinion of teh awsomeness.

    I personally thought there were alot more quality moments than just a couple of action sequences and a method actor. Very subtle almost throwaway lines late in the film that fill in apparant earlier gaps that may have been playing on a viewers minds’ were near to masterfully done, IMHO. (like how, when Joker’s talking to Batman about Rachel and says `the way you threw yourself out that window, I really thought you were Dent’ – or somesuch- which explains retrospectively why he and his gang left Wayne’s penthouse off screen after that scene, for instance) its that kind of subtlety in a screenplay that gives multiple viewings of a film worth.

    But again, that kind of thing is something that plays on what I enjoy in a film- putting to gether a puzzle (its why I enjoyed Momento so much, and are an unappolegetic Nolan supporter) so there’s my objectivity compremised already! (why yes, The Riddler is my favourite Batman villain, how’d you guess?! haha)

    All in all, as a Batman fan, I enjoy a good argument, and have really appreciated this site’s existance on that fact alone.

    So thanks everyone!

  206. butchfag, on February 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am Said:

    Okay, from what I’ve read, no one has tacked the overall issue why I hate movie. Forget little finneky things like plot and special effects, even acting.

    This movie was CONTRIVED BULLSHIT. Just the whole idea of it! We are talking about BATMAN! He is a guy in a BAT SUIT! And we’re talking about some freak who dresses up like a character from a deck of cards! And then there’s a guy with half his face burnt off, and he’s still talking!!!!
    It is FANTASY! So-
    HOW AND WHY THE FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THIS MOVIE SERIOUSLY!!!!!- And furthermore, WHY should it be so serious! IT IS BATMAN! He IS A COMIC BOOK CHARACTER!!!!

    I go to an action move to enjoy myself. Not to be bombarded with try-hard contrived crap that expects me to suspend belief in the way described above. If I wanted to see a movie that was more serious, I wouldn’t go and see something about Batman!

    The original Tim Burton was FANTASTIC – one of my favorites. I think the old series did get too silly, but I LOVED how Burton captured that curious blend of dark and light in a cooky, spooky, fun and enjoyable movie. And of course Jack Nickolson. Who could EVER forget that CLASSIC performance. Okay so Heath was pretty darn good, but it was the ONLY slightly redeeming feature for this load of try-hard CRAP that I had to endure.

    WHY are action/adventure movies so TRY-HARD these days? The only exception is the new Inidana Jones which actually brings back the fun and fantasy from the classic days of the 70s and 80s. So nostalgic, and I miss this style.

  207. camaro, on February 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm Said:

    youre welcome. i think by saying “it sucks” it makes people think. wait a minute, this movie sucks? well let me think about it. that said,

    i really wanted to like this movie. i bought tickets months in advanced, saw it again in IMAX and was basically crazy about it up until i actually saw the movie.

    i was underwhelmed.

    like previously stated, i think the main problem with TDK is the screenplay. its pretty weak. if you read the script, its fairly average. most of the joker comes from ledger; he made that character work. if there was a better script, the joker would have been even more amazing and it would have helped the other actors stand out more.

    i give this movie 2.5 stars out of 4. its decent and like someone else said, i thought ironman was the better movie. TDK tried to be too much and at times took itself too seriously. all that did was add to the mess. if heath ledger did not pull of the joker we would all be singing a different tune: that this is just an average movie that really isn’t all that great.

    camaro

  208. camaro, on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm Said:

    to add, i give batman begins 3 stars. i do think begins is the better movie

  209. pancakes, on February 26th, 2009 at 9:50 pm Said:

    See the only thing I don’t get is that everyone who goes around saying The Dark Knight SUCKS are pointing things out like “How come Batman didn’t get cut by the glass”, “How did Harvey Dent get in the limo without being seen”, “how unrealistic is the semi flipping over”.

    I’m just saying how could the movie be so awful when the only thing to complain about is ridiculous stuff like that?

    It’s all interpretive, but one time you are truly wrong is when your nitpicking a movie frame by frame to find the smallest shred of inconsistancy because you personally didn’t like it. Life isn’t perfect, so why should a movie be?

  210. Benoit Racine, on March 5th, 2009 at 5:11 am Said:

    (I wrote you about this.) Here are two seminal “reviews” of that film that pretty much sum up the wide spectrum of views on the subject.

    The first one was published in The Wall Street Journal by ultra-conservative right-wing nutjob fascistic mystery writer Andrew Klavan. It’s called “What Bush and Batman have in common”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

    The second one is by left-wing commentator-essayist Jim Kunstler and it’s called “The Dark (K)night”: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/08/dark-knight.html

    Both see Batman as Bush except, of course, one thinks it’s a good thing and the other thinks it sucks.

    Here is my own IMDb comment on the film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/usercomments-2940

    (I was mad at hell and not going to take it anymore.)

    Great website, by the way!

    Benoit Racine
    Toronto

  211. Benoit Racine, on March 5th, 2009 at 5:19 am Said:

    There is also the question of the “Dendermonde Joker”, a 20-year old deranged Belgian man who stabbed two babies in the throat, killed a caretaker and mutilated 15 other babies in a Dendermonde, Belgium, day-care centre on January 23, 2009, while made up as the Joker in “The Dark Knight”. He laughed maniacally while being interrogated by police.

    The perpetrator, Kim De Gelger, has a family name that is an anagram of “Ledger” and committed his atrocious crimes the day after Heath Ledger’s death’s anniversary.

    See this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack

    I think Kim De Gelder should be nominated as the patron saint of all comicbook superheroes (or villains) in long underwear fanboys.

  212. Waffles, on March 5th, 2009 at 9:49 am Said:

    I can only agree somewhat. biggest complaint, too long, or rather it felt too long meaning something was wrong. at a certain point after being thrilled you say to yourself, okay, i’ve had enough.

    But in its defense, lets compare Dark Knight to something like the Transporter 2. My god, its a shinning star now.

  213. CJ, on March 5th, 2009 at 11:20 am Said:

    Benoit to you even know what facism is you damn communist

  214. camaro, on March 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am Said:

    CJ how about you check your grammar before posting? lets leave politics out of this discussion please

  215. Benoit Racine, on March 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am Said:

    The movie that keeps on killing…

    From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/police-shoot-man-dressed-as-joker

    Man dressed as Batman character the Joker shot dead by police

    Peter Walker and agencies

    guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 March 2009 01.45 GMT

    [A man dressed as Batman villain the Joker has been shot dead by police in America after pointing a loaded shotgun at them.

    The dead man, who was said to be obsessed with the character, was wearing full costume and makeup when he was challenged by officers in a national park in Virginia, according to legal documents.

    The FBI named him as army specialist Christopher Lanum, who was wanted as a suspect over the stabbing of a fellow soldier at Fort Eustis, a major army base in the state, several hours before. Lanum’s girlfriend, Patsy Ann Marie Montowski, who was with him when he was shot, told investigators that the soldier idolised the Joker, played in the most recent Batman film, The Dark Knight, by the late Heath Ledger.

    The events began at the base early on Sunday when Lanum become embroiled in an argument with a fellow soldier, Mitchell Stone, allegedly stabbing him and using a stun gun on him.

    Lanum and Montowski fled in her van, which was later spotted around 200 miles away inside Shenandoah national park. Police pursued the pair, who crashed the van after running over a spiked strip laid in the road.

    According to the FBI documents, Lanum told Montowski to kill him with the shotgun but she refused. He then pointed the gun at police, his finger on the trigger, and refused orders to drop it, before being shot several times.

    Montowski was also shot and taken to hospital. Details of the case emerged yesterday after she was charged in connection with the case following treatment.

    Follow-up: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/records-eustis-soldier-was-preparing-war-idolized-joker

    Records: Eustis soldier was ‘preparing for war,’ idolized Joker

    Spc. Christopher N. Lanum was killed in a shootout with police.

    By Kate Wiltrout
    The Virginian-Pilot
    © March 13, 2009

    Spc. Christopher Lanum loved the Joker, the character from Batman.

    There were Joker posters and Joker masks in his barracks room at Fort Eustis.

    Early Sunday morning, Lanum cleaned his knives and told his girlfriend, Patsy Ann Marie Montowski, that he was “preparing for war.” He’d told her that before, but this time he was dressing the part, putting on a Joker costume he’d worn for Halloween.

    He dictated a good bye note to his daughter; Montowski wrote one to her own children. The letter, labeled “To our families and friends,” also contained messages to both their parents.

    The letter was found hours later in Lanum’s car at Fort Eustis, after the couple allegedly attacked Spc. Mitchell Stone, a soldier who shared a suite with Lanum in Building 696 at the Newport News post.

    After allegedly slashing Stone’s throat and shocking him repeatedly with a stun gun, Lanum fled with Montowski in her minivan with a 12-gauge shotgun, several knives and a bloody razor.

    Stone was taken by helicopter to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital with serious injuries.

    As Montowski drove west across Virginia, Lanum painted his face to look like the Joker.

    Hours later, after leading police on a slow-speed chase through the serpentine roads of Shenandoah National Park, Lanum – a 25-year-old combat medic who had served 15 months in Iraq – was shot dead.

    Montowski appeared Thursday in federal court in Norfolk. She is charged with being an accessory after the fact to Lanum’s alleged assault on Stone.

    Relatives of Lanum and Montowski declined to comment Thursday.

    An affidavit filed Wednesday in federal court describes in detail the couple’s alleged actions. The nine-page document, written by an FBI agent, includes information from interviews with Stone and Montowski, as well as descriptions of rooms 258 and 259 in the Fort Eustis barracks where Stone and Lanum lived.

    Montowski, who was wounded slightly in the shootout, told investigators that the trouble started after she left Lanum’s barracks room to get cigarettes out of her car.

    She told them Lanum, who had been cleaning his knives, refused to let her back into his room. So she knocked on Stone’s door and asked if she could pass through his room to the common area he shared with Lanum.

    The men began arguing, she said, and a full fight ensued.

    Stone, who Fort Eustis officials said Thursday has been released from the hospital, told an FBI agent that Lanum shocked him three times with the stun gun before he fought back and ended up wrestling Lanum on the floor. Stone said Lanum urged Montowski to use the stun gun, and she shocked him four more times before he was able to free himself.

    As he tried to open the door and flee, Lanum came from behind and cut his throat, Stone said. Stone made it to the first floor of the building, where he told base EMS personnel that Lanum had attacked him right after Lanum’s girlfriend passed through his room.

    Fort Eustis MPs found blood spatter on the walls, floors and furniture, and a knife and loaded .45 caliber handgun on the floor of the common room. A blood-covered stun gun was on the floor of Stone’s room. Hanging on a bedpost in Lanum’s room was a purse with Montowski’s driver’s license inside.

    Fort Eustis officials said Lanum, who returned from Iraq in September 2007, had been stationed at the base since November. Both he and Stone were assigned to the post’s health clinic. The 600 uniformed and civilian employees of the clinic have been offered counseling, said Karla Gonzalez, the base public affairs officer.

    Gonzalez said she had no information about whether Lanum, a combat veteran, had sought counseling or was receiving any type of treatment at Fort Eustis.

    The base is about to finish a month-long safety stand-down focused on preventing suicide.

    It isn’t clear whether Lanum intended to harm himself or expected to die. Montowski said that in the letter he dictated to his daughter, Andrea, before the assault, he said he could not explain his actions.

    Montowski told agents that she also wrote a good bye note to her children, but it was not a suicide note and she did so only because Lanum did.

    She told the agents that after the chase, Lanum tried to kill himself with a shotgun. At one point, he handed her the gun and asked her to shoot him, but she threw the gun down.

    According to the park rangers and Virginia State Police troopers involved in the chase, Lanum had the shotgun pointed at the officers who approached the driver’s side. His finger was on the trigger, and the affidavit said that he refused repeated demands to put down the gun.

    One trooper fired through the window, and Lanum’s shotgun discharged. He was struck several times and was declared dead at the scene. It is unclear who fired the fatal shots.

    Funeral services are scheduled for today for Lanum, who was born in Portsmouth and later attended Kellam High School in Virginia Beach.

    (end of story)

    I can just imagine the touching note to his daughter: “Daddy has to go out and dress up as his favourite movie character, the Joker, now and kill some people, darling. It’s just something that daddies do…”

  216. Keihzaru, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm Said:

    I liked this movie, only liked, but surely I wouldn’t watch it again.
    When I go to see a Batman movie I expect to see goddamn Batman, no wealthy people debating hollywood philosophy for about half an hour.
    That thing of Batman speaking in a growly voice all the damn time is just ridiculous, is like he is trying to scare little children, maybe he should have tried to wear a white sheet too.
    If I was a mafia mobster with gun in hand an a guy in a batsuit came speaking like he had a cold I wouldn’t be sacred, I would just shoot in the huge mouth hole in his mask, I mean whats the point of having an armor in all your body if you left your move uncovered? a bullet in the mouth and all that junk would just be a wste of time.
    and that thing of the Joker intimidating a huge group of criminals that must have guns even up their asses.
    Come one! he just killed one of them, if you go into a mafia meeting and kill one of them they are not going to be intimidate and stare blankly at you while you speak, they would shoot you dead beyond recognition.
    Maybe they all had clourophobia (or however it is wirtten) and they were just pissing their pants, that would be the only at least bit logical explanation.
    Now with the topic of Ledger performance, I kinda liked it, I mean I have no problems, the cheesy dialogues are just the work of the “awesome writing staff”, the guy acted decently with the material given to him, but people really likes to overrate it, there are soem idiots that even think taht his insomnia was because “The incredible role he made as the joker and the joekr itself were too much emotional and psichological stress”, bullshit, since when an actor becaomes traumatized by playing a poorly written character?
    The transformation of Harvey Dent into two faces was just stupid, accelerated and poorly wirtten.
    One moment he is a prosecutor who wants to clean chicago from crime, but in a second he is a serial killer.
    The joker enters his room (The guy who fucking killed his girlfriend, kidnaped him and tied up to a chair in building full of whatever they were full of) and he practically tell dent “It wasn’t me the culpcrit, yeah even when I ordered your kidnaping and set the bombs taht killed your girlfriend it was the police fault kill them” and gives him a gun….. and then just lets him walk away and becomes a serial killer. WHAT THE HELL? If I was Dent and the Joker was in fornt of the cannon of the gun he just gave me I would just shoot a bullet through his skull. Poorly written crucial moments are kewl.
    Oh and Harvey Dent jus catches fire out of nowhere, and Batman instead of trying to turn the flames off he just stands there watching.
    and how does Harvey dent walk around with his facial muscles exposed and don’t even feel pain? or gets an ifetcion?

  217. Keihzaru, on March 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm Said:

    huh aprently I fell in the depths of extremely poor grammar and Typing in my previous post XD

  218. Alex M, on March 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am Said:

    I wrote an article entitled Watchmen vs Dark Knight in which I come down heavily on the latter… because it’s an appalling movie.

    http://www.playtime-magazine.com/2009/03/watchmen-vs-the-dark-knight/

    Here’s an excerpt….

    Early in the year I forced myself to sit through Christopher Nolan’s painful but much hyped follow-up to the dreadfully mediocre Batman Begins. You know Christopher Nolan, the guy who made the brilliant and ambitious movie, Memento, following it with one of the decade’s smartest American movies, The Prestige. As a Batman fan, sitting through The Dark Knight was a physically painful affair: dire, clichéd rubbish, an overly traditional man vs terrorist setup soaked to the brim in an unquestioning philosophy a mile or two to the right of Ann Coulter. The film’s parallels between the Joker and Al Qaeda were painfully obvious, and Batman’s “by any means necessary” method simply turned the character into an unthinking Jack Bauer and the movie into an apology for the Bush regime. None of this is helped by its traditional, laboured A to B blockbuster structure, which constantly eschews things like characterization and thoughtfulness, instead willing us to leave our brains at home and enjoy the high octane action. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the occasional thrill ride, but Batman’s tired car chases and fuzzy fight scenes don’t try very hard to offer anything new or creative.

  219. pancakes, on March 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Said:

    you spelled apparentely wrong.

  220. Darksoul, on May 8th, 2009 at 4:37 am Said:

    The Dark Knight was 2008’s most over-hyped bad movie.
    Now Star Trek is 2009’s The Dark Knight.
    Star Trek (2009) is the most over-hyped pile of S$%^ of the year.
    The Writers of The New Star Trek are the new Goyers and JJ is the new Uwe Bow.
    I do not know what to hate more Star Trek (2009) or The Dark Knight.

  221. george, on May 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm Said:

    sorry, Star Trek was good. it was much better than the overhyped and entirely average dark knight.

  222. Lo, on May 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm Said:

    I don’t know if it was just me, but I had a serious problem with this movie. I have been reading batman comics since i was about 10, and i wanted to shoot myself in the foot after seeing this movie. Was it a good movie, sure, I’ll give it that. Was it BATMAN? NO. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that Christopher Nolan was so obsessed with making Batman “believable” that he actually kind of insulted the story/comic. The story is already much more believable than most comic, but so what, either way, it doesn’t matter.

    Yes, batman is a story, it isn’t real, but it is an incredible comic book, and it is it’s fiction that makes it amazing.
    Why does the Joker need to wear makeup? Have we seriously become such an unimaginative society we can’t even stretch our imaginations to believe a man’s body could become altered after a chemical bath. This was what made the Joker the Joker. He is meant to be a contradiction of a attractive person with unhuman like qualities, chalk white skin, green hair and red lips. Not an average white guy who put some crappy spray-on hair dye, grease paint, and looks like a hobo.”I’m a man of simple tastes.” Did ANYONE on the set read the comic?

    Most of all i really didn’t like the fact Heath Ledger played him. I suspect 2/3 of the movie goers were 14 and 15 year old girls who would go see anything that had “THAT HOT GUY FROM ‘10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU’”.

    My other question, what’s wrong with Harvey Dent having a chemical thrown in his face? What is so believable about being burned, if he was, he probably wouldn’t have an eye on that side either. But why can’t we just STICK to the story. Or at least the ORIGIN.

    My final question is why did Bruce Wayne seem to play such a small part in the movie. It hasn’t really touched on the emotional and psychological strain he experiences. How batman becomes a bitter person, torn between being Bruce and being who he really is, Batman. Or how he basically begins turning off as a human and becomes consumed with fighting crime.

    Well, thats all. My only point is the catch phrase for the movie , “Why So Serious?” is in my opinion a contradiction of the movie’s goal, to make it serious(OR “BELIEVABLE”). The characters live in an objective world, with consequence and dull normalcy.
    BOOOOOOOORRRRING.
    Imagination must exist in batman, that’s their unfathomable magic.
    But maybe batman just shouldn’t be made into a movie. Some of the best stories make for some of the worst movies and vice versa.

  223. Earlofthercs, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:01 am Said:

    What Batman comics have you been reading? Joker’s origin of `acid bath’ wasnt written until almost 40 years after his debut, so why is it more of an essential part of his character than his personality to you? I dont care why his face’s white, or who he was before he became the joker, I care that he acts like the joker… which he did, in this movie.

    Again the `acid’ in dents face was originally the origin of a different two face, Harvey Appolo from the old comic strips. The `acid in the face from maroni’ as two-face’s origin was only made canonical in the comcis in 1987- 45 years after his first appearance as a a comic book villain.

    The films are an alternate universe, if events happen a little differently it doesnt make them `wrong’ merely different. ITs the characterisation that’s important, and again Two Face behaves like two-face.

    I didnt find the movie boring at all.

  224. george, on May 29th, 2009 at 9:50 am Said:

    it does get boring in the third act. after the joker escapes its pretty much downhill, not a steep drop, but a slight decline to the end. i think if they got rid of dent it would have been a much better movie.

  225. Kevin, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm Said:

    Make a site about Terminator:Salvation. This raspy voiced Bale voice can ruin any movie.

  226. Lo, on June 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am Said:

    well i have no doubt youre right about the origin differences, Earlofthercs. And i appreciate the history lesson. You made valid points. But for the record i didn’t say the movie was boring, i was talking about the concept. I actually thought it was a relatively exciting movie. Yes, i have not read too many of the older comics, most I’ve read were from the 80s and after. Yes, THOSE comics. And i’m sure the original was different. No i guess it isnt essential what the joker looks like, but, personally, i didn’t think he was acting like the joker either. Just a psychopathic hobo. Just my opinion. And no, no one asked me. Im sure youre very knowledgeable about batman comics and i can appreciate that. But my point in the comment was mostly why the film was suppose to be realistic. It can be any origin im aware of or not. And no i didn’t say the alternate universe was wrong, i just thought the one they came up with was silly. The Burton joker wasn’t necessarily right either, (and yes im aware of the red hood, mobster, and struggling comedian alternate versions). And they chose the mobster, which was fine. I thought they got it mostly right for a film. And if there is another version im not aware of im anxious to know, im sure im ignorant to a lot of things But it was just belly aching, man. just seeing if anyone agreed with my personal opinion.

  227. Earlofthercs, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm Said:

    Lo, thats cool. we’re cool man, no worries.

  228. mdk, on July 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm Said:

    erm.. mr expert: so if the acidbath story was invented 40 years after jokers first appearance, that means joker was introduced in 1911 ?????,
    for the acidbath is first mentioned in Detective Comics #168 “The Man Behind the Red Hood” February, 1951

    and i think it has become essential for his charakter because this way the joker doesnt really choose to look “strange” (even if he dresses normal he is a “freak” its something like a stigma he isnt really responsible for; unlike somone using shabby makeup) and its important for the relationship between batman and joker (thats why he doesnt kill him: he feels guilty)
    and further i think heath ledger played the worst joker ever (actually i dont think he played “the joker” at all… that should not mean, he played the linguistically challenged clown bum bad) but thats just my oppnion and doesnt matter

  229. Tyrell, on July 31st, 2009 at 5:31 pm Said:

    omg wut da movie waz so dum i tink peepl wuz smokin weed wen tey saw it!!!1!111!!!!!! LOL mayb they shud see da real good moviez lik miami vice or 12 rounds. JOHN CENA CUOLD KILL BATMAN!!!

  230. Mothman, on October 9th, 2010 at 12:14 pm Said:

    I hate people who say “It’s just a movie”.

    Piss off if that’s the best critical input you can give. “It’s just a book”… It’s just a TV show” … I can’t watch this movie again because of dumb assed writing that includes fingerprints in brick dust.

Leave a Reply