The Dark Knight: A Bit Shit?
Posted by Stephen Fairbanks on December 9, 2008
The Dark Knight: The Most Overrated Film of 2008?
Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to the (rather great) Batman Begins was released on DVD this week and looks certain to be one of only a few films to claim over $1 BILLION dollars. Not only that, there are many excited individuals whispering that The Dark Knight could be the first ever comic-book film to receive an Oscar. But if we all wipe the hype out of our eyes, isn’t the film just a little, you know… shit?
Perhaps what made Batman Begins so enjoyable is that it successfully re-vamped (that may be a pun) the Batman character, stripping away all the useless and moronic trappings from the shockingly poor Batman and Robin. We got to see Bruce Wayne from a boy scared of men climbing down ropes, to Bruce Wayne the orphaned and angry adolescent, and eventually to Bruce Wayne as Batman: Gotham City’s kick-ass ninja vigilante guy. With The Dark Knight, we get Batman the parody: a man speaking in such a ridiculously gruff voice he must be spending half his fortune on cough syrup, and then there’s his mysterious vanishing from even more ridiculous places – a highly secure police building was it? In broad daylight? When you’re dressed completely in a black, bullet-proof gimp suit? Riiight.
It seems Batman had barely started his ‘cleaning up Gotham’ shtick before he’s ready to pack it all in. Using Gotham’s new square-jawed District Attorney Harvey Dent as a scapegoat so he can… what? continue being the spoiled rich kid he sets himself up to be in Bruce Wayne mode? And why do that? If you want to remove yourself from suspicion of being Batman, then why not just… stay out of public view? Or, you know, tell people you’re moving to Malta? Or just wear a wig? It worked for the Joker…
The Joker, of course, is played by the late Heath Ledger, whose premature death gave such a morbid excitement to the pre-opening of the film. There were some already calling for him to receive a posthumous Oscar for the role, despite no-one actually seeing his performance as yet. In truth, his performance seems quite laboured and self-conscious, and certainly not the least bit intimidating. His version of The Joker is a less tongue in (or out) cheek version of Jack Nicholson’s. He simply copies Jack’s frog-mouth, tongue-smacking sequence from the original Batman, rinses and repeats for the length of The Dark Knight… throw in a couple of growls and squeaks and voila! that’s pretty much all you get. The man can’t even suitably intimidate elderly folk at a fundraiser. Jack Nicholson’s creation, on the other hand, seemed a lot more menacing, psychotic and is (probably arguably) much more memorable.
“The characters seem to talk and talk without actually saying anything…”
But it’s not Heath’s fault for fleshing out a poor version of what should be Batman’s arch nemesis, it was probably Christopher Nolan’s. He and his brother wrote the script, which is downright clunky right from the get-go (count how many times – and how clumsily – the words ‘The Joker’ is used in the opening sequence – do you think The Joker might be in this film?). It seems Nolan, who made his directorial breakthrough with the excellent Following and Momento, tries to cram as much dialogue and pointlessly twisty plot into the film as possible before he has to go and set off another explosion. The characters seem to talk and talk without actually saying anything. Not only that, it seems that Nolan, quite worryingly, has been attending the Michael Bay school of filming. Just HOW many scenes have the camera circling the characters? Does this REALLY add tension / excitement? Or just dizziness / tedium?
Of course, with most comic-book films, there’s a certain amount that the audience has to buy into in order to enjoy it, for example; that Superman can be completely unrecognisable if he applies thick-frame glasses to his face and acts like a clutz. But, in Batman’s case, there is no sleight of hand or subtle wink to the audience… it’s set up to be, as the current trend is, ‘grim and REAL’. So there isn’t any innuendo or humour the film can hide behind, its faults are there, seemingly, for everyone to see.
There are good moments in the film (The Joker’s magic trick, Batman’s interrogation techniques, and Aaron Eckheart’s All-American hero / psychopath Harvey Dent in general) but they’re fleeting glimpses in this oddly mediocre and massively overrated film. Even Christopher Nolan has said he’s perplexed by the success of it. Still, he can console himself that it’s nowhere near as dreadful as 2008’s other biggie: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Oh My God This Is Awful.
It seems that The Dark Knight may be a cinematic version of The Rolling Stones: so obviously poor and often absurd, yet so many people swear its genius. Can someone kindly explain to me what I’m missing?
Reader Comments
I was just arguing with somebody else about this earlier. People get really, really angry when you imply that it was anything other than amazing.
I found it to be enjoyable enough. And I found Harvey Dent just as interesting (if not more interesting) than The Joker. But overall, I didn’t have a big emotional response to the film and the action scenes didn’t particularly excite me. The Pencil Trick was quality but…. Best Film of 2008?? Really??
Personally I think Wall-E pissed all over ol’ Batface.
I’m with ya. Wall-E was amazing.
The Dark Knight isn’t terrible… it’s just not particularly good. I’ve just been really confused as to why most people seem to like it so much.
I know some people who even enjoyed Indy IV.
*shakes head in despair*
I am an Indy 4 fan, I guess… but Im not going to get into that.
Didnt think much of Wall-E. Wall-E was a film full of nothing in my opinion. Well disapointed.
As for subject matter… The dark knight. I really liked it start to end and do agree with many of your points, but I think you expect too much and cant enjoy it for what it is. Its like you big up films to be too good and get really shot down that it “isnt”. I generally tone down any excitment I may feel for a film before watching (actually, “Clone Wars” I couldnt do that and I pretty much shitted all over it afterwards). Pretend you dont know anything about it beforehand. Dont read into what J.Ross or film shitics have to say, just watch and enjoy.
Anyway. Good read if not very pesimistic. Course Batman can disapear. If he didnt do that, he’d just be some idiot in a “gimp costume” and not the notorious batman.
I thoroughly enjoyed Wall-E and left the cinema felling satisfied and wide awake. The same can’t be said of The Dark Knight. I was nearly crucified the other night for my slandering of this pompous rape of fan-boys pockets. Perhaps that statement is a tad harsh, but Batman was a comic book, not a deep, dark ‘graphic novel’, and this film seemed to have vanished up it’s own arse by the half hour mark.
Further viewings may change my mind, but I’m not sure i could manage it. Over-long, self-aware to the point of piety and a victim of it’s own hype, this film ain’t a patch on the Burton version. Keaton > Bale / Nicholson > Ledger. Uh-oh, an Empire reader just flung one of their treasured Dark Knight limited edition (of about 12,000,000)at me!
How DAAAARE you not like Wall-E.
You’re right about The Dark Knight, i think it’s a victim of the hype. It’s an alright film, weaker than Batman Begins, I would say… but alright in a ‘this takes itself far too seriously and isn’t nearly as good as it thinks it is’ kind of way.
I found Iron Man to be a lot more enjoyable.
Oh I dare!
So we can agree to disagree on Batman then. Iron Man was indeed fab. Im looking forward to see where Iron man 2 goes. Hopefully not the same way as Emo Peter Parker…
Nice comment there Mikael. I’m not sure if you’re using a pseudonym here or if just don’t know you… but i think you may be right on the money.
I’m an Empire reader myself… and I get a little angered by their over-hyping of some of the ‘big’ movies. I remember they gave Superman Returns a 5 star review, and then quickly changed their minds… and I’d really like to believe that Dark Knight is a 5-star ‘near masterpiece’, but… it in truth, it’s a middling 3.
On another Empire bashing note, they made me go and see Hellboy II, directed by their new golden boy Guillermo del Tor… I almost wept the director of this miserable excuse for a film would be directing The Hobbit and Hobbit 2. *sniffle*
Wait Sai… you DIDN’T like the 40 minute long dance routine in Spider-Man 3?!
I only didnt like it a bit….(lot).
I didnt like Sandman or Venom in Spidey 3. The fact that Osborne was the most interesting character says a lot. And like you with Batman 2, I was actually looking forward to spidey 3 just to be thrown back with silly x-factor’ish dancing throughout.
Name a film that has dancing in it and was good. 1 film. Sopranos doesnt count
Temple of Doom? Underrated, I thinks. And I can’t think of any dancing in The Sorpanos :/
Personally, I rather much liked TDK. Maybe too much. I still refuse to be called a fanboy though.
Definitely agree on the disappearing issue (though I found the glaringly obvious “stunt wires that disappear into nothingness” and the Joker’s ability to rig an entire hospital with explosives without anyone noticing more bothering) but like you said, comic book movies have that ridiculous suspension of disbelief the audience has to take, and for me, Batman’s always been able to vanish whenever he wanted, always the mysterious one (when they did explain how he did it, you usually ended up with a form of Adam West’s “through the window” routine). I know this was supposed to be a “realistic” take on Batman – something it gets criticised for- but some things just can’t be realistically done. Still, if that’s a problem, I find more issue of this with Burton’s Batman. I really enjoy that film (Returns, not so much) but I’m the outcast in that I thought Nicholson’s Joker was the weakest part (though maybe that’s just because I don’t like the guy) Still, how the hell did the Joker keep producing randomly appearing props for a convenient pun? (I mean, seriously, was he wearing a false hand for the end fight?).
The real problem is the fans who claim it’s the best film EVAR and scream blasphemy when someone like you doesn’t agree. It causes backlash which causes more fan outcry and it just goes on forever, tainting things for people who just want to enjoy the film. If you like something, like it. If you don’t, don’t.
Well, unless that film is Camp.
No one should like that film.
Ever.
(La Confidential had a little bit of dancing in, i think, and I still think that is a great film.)
Nice comment, David… though i’ve no idea what the hell ‘Camp’ was.
I think Mr. Nicholson’s props were one of the nicest touches… like, if you’re being punched in the face by a big man who REALLY wants to kill you, why not throw a bloody pair of chattering teeth on the floor? Maybe JN’s Joker was a bit more sinister because of what he set that guy on fire with the hand-buzzer thing… pretty grim. And what did HL’s Joker do? Shoot a few people (off camera to please censors?)
Most films i’m quite happy to let go by if I don’t like it and someone else does, that’s fine… it’s just all the TDK’s 5 star reviews and ‘BEST FILM OF 2008′ acclaims… surely the film industry isn’t that bad that this reasonably mediocre affair be claimed the champ?
Actually… what WAS the best film of 2007?
Er, or rather best film of 2008? (why put the 7 next to the 8?)
My name is bruce is the best film iv seen this year
Nice site ste. I think there is a lot of valid points been made here. When a lot of people rave about something, it usually gets debated endlessly about whether its ‘actually any good’ or not.
The Dark Knight is a quality film. For me personally, it delivered on everything I was looking for in a blockbuster batman action film extravaganza. Does this mean its a masterpiece of utmost importance…not really.
I also thought WALL-E was excellent and ranks up there with the best pixar films (They rarely step a foot, or should that be wheel, wrong)
The great thing is..Noones really wrong and ya can’t string someone up for their opinion…..
….Unless your someone who thought tropic thunder was funny
Tropic Thunder was pretty terrible. Roberty Downey JAY ARR was pretty good. But not good enough to save it.
Ben Stiller should have retired after directing the amazingness that was The Cable Guy.
Tropic thunder wasnt good for so many reasons. A lot of reguritated material from a lot of Stillers movies that actually worked but done half assed and not really fitting as well as it should have. I thought Downy Jr was nothing special in it either. Bad film… Bekind Rewind.
I’ll be sure to do that, thanks.
For me dark knight suprisedme in how good it was and what it did so well.
First and foremost, for me it captured perfectly the feel and look of the frank millers books of batman. And it certain made the joker as harsh as he should be.
I loved the tim burton films, the second the most of the atmosphere it created. Mr jack did a great joker in the first film but for me he was still alittle too polished not frayed enough round the edges.
In the dark knight even from the very start the joker certainly makes his prescence known, and each scene he is in is incredable viewing.
I’ve seen people on here sau yeah dark knight wasn’t so great and then praise iron man, which is good but see the dark knight here is hopefully a good example of adult comic book made to film.
It’s up there for me with sincity, and 300, and hopefully the upcoming watchmen.
Like it or loathe it, the dark knight will shape the way things have been with superhero films ( I title I loathe btw). It acomplished what spiderman started to be but suddenly failed on in the third movie which was a great shame.
Ah, The Watchmen… another film where everyone is expecting so much… and then the trailers have been amazing… apart from the last ones where the actors speak, which sounds a little odd. :/
Hopefully it will manage to be pretty solid stuff… I hear they’re going to change the ending, which is a shame.
But anyhoo… I can’t remember the last ‘big’ movie that i really ‘bought into’, if you get me. They’ve all seemed to be alright in parts, and then poor in others. Maybe i’m hoping for too much.
The films i’m worried about are The Hobbit(s) after watching the dire Hellboy II. Again, I can’t believe people liked it.
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen.
First of all let me address the Wall-E debate – the earthbound section of the film is charming and beautifully put together but what really gets my goat is the sheer ‘preachiness’, if that’s a word, of the 2nd half. For a film made by 2 huge global behemoths, which followed adverts for the Wall-E video game, Wall-E happy meal etc etc (seriously the ads took over 30mins at the odeon) to preach the dangers of kids watching too much tv/playing on video games/getting fat was akin to Gary Glitter doing an informercial about the dangers of speaking to strangers.
WALL-E SUCKS!
Now Sir lets get to The Dark Knight.
I have watched TDK 3 times – first time at the cinema, 2nd at the iMax and just recently on DVD and, in my humble opinion, it was very good 1st time even better 2nd time around and lost nothing on the 3rd viewing. It escalates in scale and scope from the excellent Batman Begins, which as an origin movie is untouchable.
The influences from Michael Mann’s Heat are there for all to see and surely that’s a good thing when a summer blockbuster is taking its cues from that sort of film.
How you can label it ‘a bit shit’ is unbelievable in my view. Shame on you Sir!
I would like to address a couple of your points–
Batman’s ‘voice’
Yes it verges on a bad Clint Eastwood impression but it serves a purpose. Bruce Wayne is the ‘Prince of Gotham’ and as such would be akin to Tom Cruise cleaning up down town LA so his voice has to be either drastically different or he goes mute and communicates only via text messaging – actually I might pitch that one to those Orange Film geezers!
The Joker
We all knew The Joker was in this film off the back of TDK’s excellent marketing campaign and for me the opening sequence lets us see how this new criminal was making his mark on Gotham’s underworld by way of being the name on the lips of any ‘hud for hire’.
If we are going to compare Ledger to Nicholson then we may as well compare him to Cesar Romero too. 3 Jokers in 3 very different interpreations of the Batman story.
‘Batman’ was a Tim Burton film and thus inhabited a world where the absurd and surreal blend far easier than they would in a ‘real’ world setting so things like having a stupidly long pistol shoot down the Batwing can work for the Burton Joker but would not work in Nolan’s Gotham. For me both Nicholson and Ledger produce outstanding performances and I wouldn’t like to have to choose between them.
TDK’s strength lies in its very strong ensemble cast with Christian Bale being backed up with excellent supporting roles from Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckharrt and Gary Oldman and them in turn being supported by the elder statesmen of the piece; Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine.
Killing off Rachel Dawes was a wise move and will hopefully see the introduction of Selina Kyle as the love in Bruce Wayne’s/Batman’s life. Add that to a hopefully ‘not actually dead’ Two Face and we’re now set up for chapter 3.
In conclusion TDK is quite simply the best ‘comic book’ film there has ever been. As for whether it’s the best film of 2008 then its quite probably not but who knows – I thought No Country For Old Men was a borefest of a movie backed by an excellent trailer and that got movie buffs moist in the undercarriage.
Firstly, congratulations on writing a reply almost as long as the original (and lengthy) post. I doffs thee cap.
Sadly though, the doffing of the cap will have to be revoked, because of your upsetting and rudimentary besmirch of a personal friend of mine… namely, Wall-E.
In regard to the accusation of Wall-E (the film, not the lovable little tyke himself) being a tad hypocritical in its ‘message of conservation through mass-production’ harangue … but we could also consider the film to be one of the most bold and affective environmental campaigns ever! We should be praising, not slandering its good natured attempt to be positive and confrontational about such topical things as obesity and, you know… keeping the world inhabitable. Who’s to say that all films have to be passive? It’s rare that a film can have a ‘message’ and not be outright garbage. It’s testament to the high quality of the film that even though it does preach… it’s still massively enjoyable… more so than TDK.
And the message itself doesn’t come from the company who financed it… it comes from the endowed artists / writers / animators at Pixar. It’s big-bad Disney studios who are the monsters responsible for trying to steal all the little kiddies’ money away with the merchandising…. Pixar are just the talented people who create it. And, let’s remember that the film’s main demographic is the family unit… so although the first part of the film is better than the second, of course we can expect the turn to the typical love-story / chase sequence / moralistic finale. I really think Wall-E has far more going for it, at least in the terms of originality and creativity, than The Dark Knight. I really couldn’t care less about Batman’s Rachel being blown to pieces… but the thought of losing Wall-E… it just doesn’t bear thinking about. *strokes framed picture of Wall-E*
I watched Heat again at the weekend, and was reminded just how much The Dark Knight tries (and fails) to measure up. The score / the Mise-en-scène (I did a bit of film studies) the pace… it’s all pretty much ripped off from Heat. Although Heat does it far, far better. To say that we should be praising TDK for using such a great film is a template is also a moot issue. If I was to pick up a guitar and try to re-write a Beatles song, albeit badly, do I deserve praise? Or am I, you know… just trying to cash in on its greatness?
And yes… Heath Ledger. I honestly think his version of The Joker was a pretty forgettable … but then again… I really can’t think of a decent Comic-Book villain (maybe Magneto? – although you could argue he isn’t a villain at all). My problem with Heath is that… he isn’t in the least bit scary / intimidating. I, personally, could buy into Nicholson’s Joker because he genuinely came across as a psychopath (true, it’s a Burton film… but it’s also set somewhere close to reality… yet doesn’t take itself nearly as seriously). What does Heath DO other than stick his tongue out and growl occasionally? The only cool bits he has is his jamming of a pencil into someone’s eye and where he wears a dress. This is hardly anything to do with Heath’s performance, is it? I swear, the scenes where he picks up a video camera and films himself… I cringe – he aims for ‘menacing’ but comes nowhere near, so then he runs out of ideas and decides to end it with a witchy cackle. Hmm. Nice one?
As mentioned in the original post… the film isn’t terrible… it just isn’t very good. And fails (in my opinion) in most of the things it tries to do. The pacing / the story / the ‘mood’ it’s all very, very convoluted and doesn’t flow like it should. For the most part, it’s downright clunky, and although I really liked Batman Begins… I really hope they do better in the 3rd film. And maybe have a little bit more about, oh, say… Batman? (he can leave his silly mobile-phone surveillance thing behind).
I thought TDK was watchable but it didn’t tickle my Endorphin-bone. I must say ‘shame on you’ to Neil for saying No Country For Old Men was a bore feast. But rarely do you find someone that can get excited by both a comic book film and a superb Coen brothers flick.