The Dark Knight - most overrated movie of all time

Ardent

I've just noticed The Dark Knight has a score of 9/10 on IMDB! That puts it well ahead apparently of movies like Pulp Fiction (8.9), Goodfellas (8.7), Star Wars (8.7), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (8.7), all three Lord Of The Ring movies (8.7), etc.

I must be living in a parallel universe - I didn't think it was all that great! Leaving the contrived plot aside, my two main gripes with the movie were:

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

2 - Heath Ledger's performance. It was a good performance for sure but I don't get all the fawning over his portrayal of the Joker. I felt it was a bit one dimensional if I'm honest:

*Through out some crazy lines *
*Gather some saliva*
*Laugh*
*Why so serious?*
etc etc

I really feel if he hadn't died prior to the release of the movie there wouldn't have been so much hype around his performance.

So, most overrated move ever in my book. Discuss.

Looper007

Different strokes for different folks, you might not like but a lot of people do. Still the best comic book film made and one of the best films made in the last 20 years. Ledger performance was excellent, its nothing to do with him dying. That's a iconic role that it even overshadows good old Jack's performance. It's a far better movie then the overrated Ring Trilogy and Star wars film. Sorry for you that you didn't enjoy it. Plus its taken itself serious not jokey which is a great thing.

fruvai

Ardent wrote: »

I've just noticed The Dark Knight has a score of 9/10 on IMDB! That puts it well ahead apparently of movies like Pulp Fiction (8.9), Goodfellas (8.7), Star Wars (8.7), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (8.7), all three Lord Of The Ring movies (8.7), etc.

There are a lot of questionable ratings on IMDB - the top 250 is littered with them

Ardent wrote: »

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

The Harvey Dent part was the whole feckin point of the film!

Oafley Jones

It's overly long, Nolan can't direct a coherent action scene and it doesn't entirely seem to exist in the same universe as the first movie, but along with Begins I really like it. Love Ledgers Joker. I think people have forgotten about what a fresh take on the character it was. There's some wonderful touches to the performance e.g. His multiple accounts of "How I got my scars". Watch his eyes. Up and to the left. Usually a decent indicator of someones who making something up on the spot.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

When I first saw it I thought it was very very good although a bit long. On my second and third viewing I didn't even like the movie, I think I enjoyed ledgers joker more than the movie itself.

You're right OP, all those other movies you listed are much much better. Imo Batman Begins is actually a better movie that it.

Edit: Apart from Star Wars. That's just a bit meh. Love the universe but those movies are really really over hyped.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

The_Valeyard

Heretic!!!!!!

efb

dead actors ftw

Ardent

sugarman wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, it's not even the best film of the trilogy!

Much prefer Batman Begins.

Totally, love that movie!

You reminded me of another bug bear of mine with TDK - Maggie Gylenhall as Rachel. Need someone more beautiful for the role to make that whole unrequited love story more believable!

Drexel

Almost every movie is 40 minutes too long these days

Dark knight was good. Not brilliant.

Like some others I much preferred the first and thought it should have been left as a stand alone film

I really wanna watch interstellar, it sounds right up my alley but it's nearly 3
Hours long. Just unnecessary

don ramo

ha IMDB ratings dont stand up to well to scrutiny, 2 recent films i saw saouthpaw and mad max fury road, were, for me, 2 of the worst films ive seen this year, but have great ratings on IMDB, a rating which should be a good gauge of a films quality, but its not a gauge of quality, its a gauge of popularity, which is something completely different,

nolans batman trilogy is probably the best superhero trilogy ever, very solid over the 3 films, i agree with other that the first was the best, but the other 2 were also excellent, they have their issues, but hey what film doesnt,

if you like superhero films and hated the dark knight, what is your favorite superhero film out of interest,

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Drexel wrote: »

I really wanna watch interstellar, it sounds right up my alley but it's nearly 3
Hours long. Just unnecessary

Don't let the fact that it's three hours put you off. I'm sure pulp fiction is two and three quarters, the godfathers are three hours each etc. Imo Interstellar is an experience, it has to be seen on imax...you need to give it your full attention...to me it's a perfect movie but I'm well aware it's one of those films that decides opinion. I loved it. Not sure if watching it at home does it justice though.

MadDog76

The Dark Knight was ........ ok ........ well maybe actually good ......... but definitely nowhere near as great as Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas or any of the three Lord Of The Ring movies .......... but it was much better than that pile of sh1te called Star Wars!!!

Never really rated Heath Ledger in anything to be honest.

don ramo

Drexel wrote: »

Almost every movie is 40 minutes too long these days


I really wanna watch interstellar, it sounds right up my alley but it's nearly 3
Hours long. Just unnecessary

yeah a 2.5 hour runtime is becoming far to common for my likings, some films need it but not many, even comedies are 2 hours plus, they only need to 90 minutes long, 100 max,

all about pressing play, once you press it you wont even notice it, great film, even the 3 hours i thought wasnt enough,

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MadDog76 wrote: »

Never really rated Heath Ledger in anything to be honest.

Guilty pleasure: 10 Things I hate about you.

Cough!

MadDog76

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Guilty pleasure: 10 Things I hate about you.

Cough!

More guilt than pleasure is what you should be feeling!!!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MadDog76 wrote: »

More guilt than pleasure is what you should be feeling!!!

I've let my mask slip :P

Gwynplaine

Nothing wrong with a long film, some people have no attention span, and need to check Facebook every 5 minutes.
Different strokes and all that. The Dark Knight is a superb film, and I couldn't sit through ten minutes of LOTR. But I can see the appeal in it alright.
To the lad who hasn't seen Interstellar. Watch it at night time, on your own, big telly, good sound, put away your phone, enjoy.

efb

don ramo wrote: »

ha IMDB ratings dont stand up to well to scrutiny, 2 recent films i saw saouthpaw and mad max fury road, were, for me, 2 of the worst films ive seen this year, but have great ratings on IMDB, a rating which should be a good gauge of a films quality, but its not a gauge of quality, its a gauge of popularity, which is something completely different,

nolans batman trilogy is probably the best superhero trilogy ever, very solid over the 3 films, i agree with other that the first was the best, but the other 2 were also excellent, they have their issues, but hey what film doesnt,

if you like superhero films and hated the dark knight, what is your favorite superhero film out of interest,

Surely you just check the critic metascore?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Gwynplaine wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a long film, some people have no attention span, and need to check Facebook every 5 minutes.
Different strokes and all that. The Dark Knight is a superb film, and I couldn't sit through ten minutes of LOTR. But I can see the appeal in it alright.
To the lad who hasn't seen Interstellar. Watch it at night time, on your own, big telly, good sound, put away your phone, enjoy.

A friend asked me about interstellar and I gave similar advice. Put the bloody phone away and immerse yourself in it. The movie deserves it. He watched it on his laptop while simultaneously checking his phone every two seconds and hated the movie...*sigh*

Ardent

don ramo wrote: »

if you like superhero films and hated the dark knight, what is your favorite superhero film out of interest,

Most recently, one of Iron Man or The Avengers. All time, the original Superman with Christopher Reeves.

Gwynplaine

The Honey Monster wrote: »

A friend asked me about interstellar and I gave similar advice. Put the bloody phone away and immerse yourself in it. The movie deserves it. He watched it on his laptop while simultaneously checking his phone every two seconds and hated the movie...*sigh*

Oh god.
Went to see Mad Max a while back with a friend. Checks phone every couple of minutes, could see the light in corner of my eye. Was probably something important, like a picture of a dinner put up by some local idiot, with comments in text speak and bad grammar.
Anyway, lesson learned.

e_e

Ardent wrote: »

I've just noticed The Dark Knight has a score of 9/10 on IMDB! That puts it well ahead apparently of movies like Pulp Fiction (8.9), Goodfellas (8.7), Star Wars (8.7), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (8.7), all three Lord Of The Ring movies (8.7), etc.

I must be living in a parallel universe - I didn't think it was all that great! Leaving the contrived plot aside, my two main gripes with the movie were:

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

2 - Heath Ledger's performance. It was a good performance for sure but I don't get all the fawning over his portrayal of the Joker. I felt it was a bit one dimensional if I'm honest:

*Through out some crazy lines *
*Gather some saliva*
*Laugh*
*Why so serious?*
etc etc

I really feel if he hadn't died prior to the release of the movie there wouldn't have been so much hype around his performance.

So, most overrated move ever in my book. Discuss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

e_e

Dark Knight is a funny one for me, for about the first 90 minutes we have what could have been the towering masterpiece of the superhero genre but then we're let down by a muddled, hole-ridden and often ridiculous final act. You know a film's script has been rushed when the final scene consists of characters standing around literally shouting the theme of the movie at each other.

myshirt

Sher This is Spinal Tap is rated an 11 on IMDB. Check it out.

For my part, I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed The Dark Knight. Seems to be this professional dislike amongst certain cohorts of the community against Christopher Nolan. I don't entirely get it, even 4 decent enough independent film makers I spoke to myself, they just don't like his films.

don ramo

efb wrote: »

Surely you just check the critic metascore?

also not an indication, its still influenced by popularity and media coverage, best case off the top of my head is the lone ranger film, that got heavily criticised cause johnny depp played tonto, native americans came out against it, and the people who are suppose to critique it were influenced my the negative media attention, so go to meta critic and see it got 37%, but users probably got closer to a truer uninfluenced rating of 6.5, probably i little more than i would have given it, but a 37% is overkill,

once the negativity bandwagon gets rolling, thats it, a film is done, weve all seen films that have been torn apart, and avoided them for years, only for a friend or two to say that its actually a good film, and you watch it and it turns out its actually a good film,

the best critic to listen to is an informed patron, i think i have a good radar for films at this point, once youve seen a few thousand films you should have an idea of what you like, but you can still go wrong, hollywood has gotten pretty good at misrepresenting their product, and burying the diamonds so deep it could take years to find them,

Ardent wrote: »

Most recently, one of Iron Man or The Avengers. All time, the original Superman with Christopher Reeves.

yeah pretty good films alright, the first iron man is probably still top 3 of the franchise, the other 2 for me are probably the worst 2 of the franchise, cant beat superman, just a classic, even with all the advancements in technology they still cant get back to that, if Brian Singer cant do a good superman no one can, snyder is a hack,

id say so far myself nolan and singer have done more for superhero films that anyone else, singer got a bad one with superman returns it should have been rebooted instead of a continuation, sure the dark knight is overrated, but its still a fine example of how to do a lot of things right in a superhero film, as are the X-Men films, at least when singer is involved, vaughn also done a great job in first class, but singer being singer blew it outta the park with days of future past,

Looper007

Ardent wrote: »

Most recently, one of Iron Man or The Avengers. All time, the original Superman with Christopher Reeves.

The Dark Knight makes them all look shoddy, I like Iron man and The Avengers but they are fun and enjoyable. Dark Knight is a proper film. I always found the Supermen films rather bland.

Looper007

The Honey Monster wrote: »

Guilty pleasure: 10 Things I hate about you.

Cough!

Nothing guilty about that film, looking at it know it has a great cast. One of the best teen movies ever.

Heath ledger made some great movies to fair

Brokeback Mountain (he was the best thing In it)
Candy (a great Aussie junkie film)
Two Hands (his debut Aussie film with Rosie Bryne)
Monster Ball

johnny_ultimate

Ardent wrote: »

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

Alluded to by fruvai above, but the Harvey Dent-heavy third act is actually an essential part of the Batman v Joker story. Your bog-standard, traditional superhero tale usually ends when the villain is captured. What's interesting about The Dark Knight is that the conflict continues and complicates even after the supposed capture of the Joker. In the film The Joker vs Batman battle is an ideological one - Wayne's quest for peace and hope vs The Joker's lust for anarchy, destruction and the other dark sides of humanity and Gotham society. It runs much deeper than just putting one guy in jail, and indeed its consequences continue to be felt in the sequel even though the Joker himself is barely mentioned.

Ultimately Harvey Dent himself is the final battleground for the two, where those ideological conflicts manifest themselves for a final showdown. The Two Face duality and coin-flipping symbolism are simple but effective - the corruption of the man who Bruce Wayne had pegged as Gotham's Great Hope. The character's presence here is less trying to shove another well-known villain into the mix like in many superhero - and Batman - films past, but more Nolan realising what the very nature of the character can bring to the film and its central conflict. The Joker 'wins' by proving that even Dent can be destroyed, while the only way Batman snatches something remotely resembling a final 'victory' is by choosing to lie. It's a morally ambivalent conclusion, a 'good' ending for Gotham at an incredibly high cost. And, well, if there's any doubt that's what Joker vs Batman was all about, the film tells the audience in no uncertain terms during the final exchange between Gordon and the caped crusader (Nolan has a career-habit of overexplaining, although there's a beautifully articulate shot in the final minutes here where Batman turns over Dent's head to reveal the 'good' side of Two Face - more definitive and persuasive than any amount of exposition).

Certainly aspects of how the final act is delivered could have been handled better - it feels rushed and the transition a little jarring. But it is an absolutely vital element of the film, and it's thematically richer for it.

2 - Heath Ledger's performance. It was a good performance for sure but I don't get all the fawning over his portrayal of the Joker. I felt it was a bit one dimensional if I'm honest:

You argue one-dimensional, I'd argue fascinatingly enigmatic What makes Nolan and Ledger's Joker so memorable is the level of mysteriousness they retain over the character. Sure he's an immensely charismatic screen presence, but there's a profound mysteriousness to the character too - his uncertain origins, his constant conjuring up his own conflicting backstories, the almost supernatural way he can appear and disappear when he wants to. He's giddily unhinged, a powerful representation of the chaos and unpredictability that makes him such an enduring character in film, comics, animation etc... Even right down to the make-up and Ledger's physical mannerisms, there's always something tantalizingly elusive and unpredictable about him.

Oafley Jones wrote:

Nolan can't direct a coherent action scene

His editing often leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in the car chase scene here (although I think the 'sonar' assault almost benefits from slightly chaotic editing). Yet at the same time himself and Wally Pfister can frame one hell of a shot. The Dark Knight is littered with more remarkable, potent and memorable shots than the entirety of the Marvel catalogue combined.

Dirty Dingus McGee

It's on of the greatest action movies of all time in my opinion.I loved it and the scene with the Bat Bike is brilliant.

LuckyLloyd

It was an immense cinema experience, muddled final act notwithstanding. Saw it in some IMAX screen in an aerospace museum in Virginia and was absolutely wowed by it. The prison wagon chase scene leading to the "capture" of the Joker is a triumph. I really don't think the other two movies in the trilogy touch upon it tbh.

.ak

You have to take into the context of the movie; sure Heath Ledger's unfortunate and untimely death helped the hype, but more to the point a lot of people grew up watching Tim Burton's Batman movies... and the Joker has always been a favourite. It was a fantastic representation of a classic character in a modern setting, they did a great job on making him contemporary.

It isn't a brilliant movie out of context, the dialogue is OTT and so-so, but as a package, as a whole? It's pretty entertaining, and lets be honest, that's what it's meant to be, no more, no less. It's defo the best out of the series imo.

Adamocovic

Who really cares how good others rate it. It's up to you to determine how good you think it is, shouldn't get annoyed if others think it's better or worse than you think.

Zubeneschamali

I thought it was poor at the cinema.

Watching it again on DVD without my head ringing with the OTT soundtrack, I thought it was a bit better: there was a good Batman v. Joker movie in there somewhere.

Cut an hour out, have the Joker's evil plots make some sense, film the end of the story with the Joker in it. Oh, and have the actual Batman in it, too, the hero who doesn't off bad guys. Also, pull the camera back a little from the fights, and stop cutting every quarter second, turn a few lights on so we can see what's going on some of the time.

And get off my lawn.

Brief_Lives

I thought it was an incredible movie....
Great story, excellent acting... Ledger dominated every scene..

a personification of how Gotham has changed since Batman Begins.

a film full of quotes and a trailer that could have been 2.5 hours long, there were so many good bits.

Saipanne

Ardent wrote: »

I've just noticed The Dark Knight has a score of 9/10 on IMDB! That puts it well ahead apparently of movies like Pulp Fiction (8.9), Goodfellas (8.7), Star Wars (8.7), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (8.7), all three Lord Of The Ring movies (8.7), etc.

I must be living in a parallel universe - I didn't think it was all that great! Leaving the contrived plot aside, my two main gripes with the movie were:

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

2 - Heath Ledger's performance. It was a good performance for sure but I don't get all the fawning over his portrayal of the Joker. I felt it was a bit one dimensional if I'm honest:

*Through out some crazy lines *
*Gather some saliva*
*Laugh*
*Why so serious?*
etc etc

I really feel if he hadn't died prior to the release of the movie there wouldn't have been so much hype around his performance.

So, most overrated move ever in my book. Discuss.

Goodfellas is on that list. The most overrated film ever in my book. Discuss.

Different strokes...

faceman

Pulp Fiction is one of the worst pieces of films in the history of cinema.

Star Wars has lines so cheesy it's as if Lucas got his kids to write it

As a popular YouTube channel says, no movie is without sin....

ERG89

Looper007 wrote: »

Nothing guilty about that film, looking at it know it has a great cast. One of the best teen movies ever.

Heath ledger made some great movies to fair

Brokeback Mountain (he was the best thing In it)
Candy (a great Aussie junkie film)
Two Hands (his debut Aussie film with Rosie Bryne)
Monster Ball

I really like The Patriot too.

Remember watching it in school and the women in my class were all nearly crying when he got killed in it.

Dark Knight is great favourite scene is the Prison Truck chase. I dunno why but I love that just before the truck gets flipped by Batman inside the Joker pops up in his seat. Such a minor detail but cool :cool:
It's long yeah but it packs in the origin story of one of Batman greatest villians told without rushing also has the Joker on top of that.
I also like Batman Begins too but TDK is far less dragged out than the Avengers which isn't even better than Guardians of the Galaxy imo. The first hour or so of the Avengers now that is drawn out.

micks_address

Ardent wrote: »

I've just noticed The Dark Knight has a score of 9/10 on IMDB! That puts it well ahead apparently of movies like Pulp Fiction (8.9), Goodfellas (8.7), Star Wars (8.7), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (8.7), all three Lord Of The Ring movies (8.7), etc.

I must be living in a parallel universe - I didn't think it was all that great! Leaving the contrived plot aside, my two main gripes with the movie were:

1 - The move is *way* too long. 40 mins or so were added to the running time with the completely unnecessary Harvey Dent/Two Face story late on. At this point the movie should have been wrapping things up - I remember looking at my watch in the cinema and thinking "come on!". I felt it distracted from the main Batman v Joker story as well.

2 - Heath Ledger's performance. It was a good performance for sure but I don't get all the fawning over his portrayal of the Joker. I felt it was a bit one dimensional if I'm honest:

*Through out some crazy lines *
*Gather some saliva*
*Laugh*
*Why so serious?*
etc etc

I really feel if he hadn't died prior to the release of the movie there wouldn't have been so much hype around his performance.

So, most overrated move ever in my book. Discuss.

I actually only watched it again the other night... Stands up very well.. I think it's at least ten times better than rises..

Tomagotchye

Looper007 wrote: »

the overrated Ring Trilogy

Oh.No.You.Didn't!

Ardent

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You argue one-dimensional, I'd argue fascinatingly enigmatic What makes Nolan and Ledger's Joker so memorable is the level of mysteriousness they retain over the character. Sure he's an immensely charismatic screen presence, but there's a profound mysteriousness to the character too - his uncertain origins, his constant conjuring up his own conflicting backstories, the almost supernatural way he can appear and disappear when he wants to. He's giddily unhinged, a powerful representation of the chaos and unpredictability that makes him such an enduring character in film, comics, animation etc... Even right down to the make-up and Ledger's physical mannerisms, there's always something tantalizingly elusive and unpredictable about him.

Let me qualify what I mean by one dimensional -

With the Joker in the 1989 Batman, we got to see both the sociopath and the jokester. And I thought Jack Nicholson did a great job of mixing the two, portraying wonderfully a deranged individual that was both frightening and hilarious at the same time.

With TDK, we get a pretty flat, dark and disturbing character with not much in the way of humour. I think the only time that might have raised a chuckle in the TDK was the "watch me make this pencil disappear" scene! So, really, the range that Ledger had to play with was quite limited IMO and it feels to me that he compensated by over-acting his scenes.

Also, we don't get a complete character story arc and we never get to see what drives the joker in the TDK - all we know is that he wants to watch the world burn but we never know why - but that's more the fault of Nolan and the script writers.

Tomagotchye

Ardent wrote: »

Also, we don't get a complete character story arc and we never get to see what drives the joker in the TDK - all we know is that he wants to watch the world burn but we never know why - but that's more the fault of Nolan and the script writers.

You need to watch it again. That "world burn" scene explicitly explains to the audience that there is no reasoning for what he does...that is his character. It's set up as a simple character, Harvey Dent is the complex one.

kunst nugget

Ardent wrote: »

You reminded me of another bug bear of mine with TDK - Maggie Gylenhall as Rachel. Need someone more beautiful for the role to make that whole unrequited love story more believable!

Because obviously unrequited love can only happen when someone is jizzinyerpants hot.

Mickeroo

Ardent wrote: »

Let me qualify what I mean by one dimensional -

With the Joker in the 1989 Batman, we got to see both the sociopath and the jokester. And I thought Jack Nicholson did a great job of mixing the two, portraying wonderfully a deranged individual that was both frightening and hilarious at the same time.

With TDK, we get a pretty flat, dark and disturbing character with not much in the way of humour. I think the only time that might have raised a chuckle in the TDK was the "watch me make this pencil disappear" scene! So, really, the range that Ledger had to play with was quite limited IMO and it feels to me that he compensated by over-acting his scenes.

Also, we don't get a complete character story arc and we never get to see what drives the joker in the TDK - all we know is that he wants to watch the world burn but we never know why - but that's more the fault of Nolan and the script writers.

With Joker, I always felt like the only person laughing should be him, I liked Nicholson's version but I don't think it was really true to what the character is about in the way the TDK version was.

Jon Stark

Ardent wrote: »

Let me qualify what I mean by one dimensional -

With the Joker in the 1989 Batman, we got to see both the sociopath and the jokester. And I thought Jack Nicholson did a great job of mixing the two, portraying wonderfully a deranged individual that was both frightening and hilarious at the same time.

With TDK, we get a pretty flat, dark and disturbing character with not much in the way of humour. I think the only time that might have raised a chuckle in the TDK was the "watch me make this pencil disappear" scene! So, really, the range that Ledger had to play with was quite limited IMO and it feels to me that he compensated by over-acting his scenes.

Also, we don't get a complete character story arc and we never get to see what drives the joker in the TDK - all we know is that he wants to watch the world burn but we never know why - but that's more the fault of Nolan and the script writers.

He's not driven by anything (hence the "you have nothing I want" line).

Whatever the catalyst was for the Joker becoming insane is long gone, and not really relevant to the plot. It wouldn't add anything to the character or plot to tell us why he is the way he is other than to tac on an unnecessary sympathetic angle.

That's what made the Joker so compelling to me; he's not like your dime a dozen villain who has this great master plan for world domination. He's quite simply just a nutjob whose sole purpose is the facilitation of the breakdown of society. He's nothing to gain from it other than sadistic pleasure.

Zubeneschamali

Jon Stark wrote: »

He's quite simply just a nutjob whose sole purpose is the facilitation of the breakdown of society.

Exactly - he's one dimensional.

Not Ledger's fault, he does a fine job, but the character is a a cardboard cutout villain.

faceman

Ardent wrote: »

Let me qualify what I mean by one dimensional -

With the Joker in the 1989 Batman, we got to see both the sociopath and the jokester. And I thought Jack Nicholson did a great job of mixing the two, portraying wonderfully a deranged individual that was both frightening and hilarious at the same time.

With TDK, we get a pretty flat, dark and disturbing character with not much in the way of humour. I think the only time that might have raised a chuckle in the TDK was the "watch me make this pencil disappear" scene! So, really, the range that Ledger had to play with was quite limited IMO and it feels to me that he compensated by over-acting his scenes.

Also, we don't get a complete character story arc and we never get to see what drives the joker in the TDK - all we know is that he wants to watch the world burn but we never know why - but that's more the fault of Nolan and the script writers.

The Joker character is not meant to be a jokester. While I love the 1989 Batman, primarily due to Keaton, I never shared the love for Nicholson's Joker character.

What Ledger and Nolan captured was the chaos the Joker brings. This is echoed in one of Alfred's speeches using the analogy of the jewel thief who stole the diamonds and threw them away. He just liked the fun of it.

By limited the backstory of the character it removes any attachment to his humanity and moral grounding. In other words, there is no hope to his redemption.

hardCopy

Ardent wrote: »

Totally, love that movie!

You reminded me of another bug bear of mine with TDK - Maggie Gylenhall as Rachel. Need someone more beautiful for the role to make that whole unrequited love story more believable!

Jon Stark

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly - he's one dimensional.

Not Ledger's fault, he does a fine job, but the character is a a cardboard cutout villain.

I find it to be the opposite tbh. People seem get frustrated because they can't pin down the character's motivation, and want a neat explanation of what makes the character tick.

Within the wider context of the story, the Joker being "one dimensional" in his purpose brings two men to the edge of insanity (leaving one broken and the other dead), an assistant DA dead, a police commissioner morally compromised and eventually his family in tatters, and multiple people murdered.

If that's one dimensional I don't think much can be said to change one's mind.

razorblunt

I have to say I liked it, but it does drag a little on re-watches.
I also agree with some comments made already about a) being overhyped due to Ledger's death and b) I don't rate Gyllenhaal in any way.

The Joker is great though, I love that scene in the prison station where his clapping continues after the officers stop. The scene where he's standing on the street just begging to be mown down is great too.
I didn't like the fact they changed the "judge" in TDKR to be Scarecrow out of respect to him. It's a character, it could have been left to continue using over the shoulder camera angles or from the POV of the police officers.

tigger123

Ardent wrote: »

Totally, love that movie!

You reminded me of another bug bear of mine with TDK - Maggie Gylenhall as Rachel. Need someone more beautiful for the role to make that whole unrequited love story more believable!

That's a ridiculous criticism. So, unrequited love can only happen when the object of affection is super duper gorgeous? Because you don't think she's good looking (which you're completely entitled too), you couldn't understand a storyline whereby someone falls in love with her?