The Dark Knight - most overrated movie of all time

Mrs Shuttleworth

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 remember seeing this in Savoy One when it came out and a huge cheer emanating from the crowd when the curtain (do they still have it?) pulled back, presumably because it was Nolan.

Personally I thought TDK was terrible (but loved The Dark Knight Rises) and on a revisionist view haven't changed my mind.

It's a film of its time, produced at that point in the evolution of popular culture when "soul" and the abstract were removed from television programming, music and cinema. Cleverness and literal realism predominated (and still do to this day) and audiences fawned accordingly.

The Dark Knight Rises is a much better film (and more than dips its hand into Tim Burton's 1989 version).

Zubeneschamali

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Dark Knight Rises is a much better film

Jesus, no. For all its flaws, The Dark Knight is better than that mess.

Jon Stark

Just on the point that Ledger's performance was overrated, I remember clearly enough some of the nominations for best supporting actor that year. Hoffman in Doubt. Brolin's barely in it performance in Milk. Shannon's eccentric performance in Revolutionary Road.

While good, none of them were exactly ground breaking or even that memorable. Forgettable even. That's the one word you couldn't use to describe Ledger in TDK.

So on merit, I don't think it's a stretch to argue Ledger deserved to win, and surely would have been shortlisted regardless of his death. Don't forget either that this a man who arguably should have won best actor years previously.

e_e

don ramo wrote: »

if Brian Singer cant do a good superman no one can, snyder is a hack

Wrong way around tbh. At least Snyder has a distinctive visual style, you seriously couldn't watch a scene out of context and say "That's by Bryan Singer!"

e_e

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Dark Knight Rises is a much better film .

I kind of agree and worry we'll never get a superhero film of the same scope and ambition again. It was maybe the last one to really hit me on that purely cinematic level, far beyond the TV quality stuff we've been getting lately.

Zubeneschamali

e_e wrote: »

we'll never get a superhero film of the same scope and ambition again.

Fingers crossed.

nyarlothothep

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I remember seeing this in Savoy One when it came out and a huge cheer emanating from the crowd when the curtain (do they still have it?) pulled back, presumably because it was Nolan.

Personally I thought TDK was terrible (but loved The Dark Knight Rises) and on a revisionist view haven't changed my mind.

It's a film of its time, produced at that point in the evolution of popular culture when "soul" and the abstract were removed from television programming, music and cinema. Cleverness and literal realism predominated (and still do to this day) and audiences fawned accordingly.

The Dark Knight Rises is a much better film (and more than dips its hand into Tim Burton's 1989 version).

When the film came out I was originally non plussed by its overt seriousness which was compromised by the fact that it was about people in suits and even more dismissive of the hype it attained with people echoing each other, saying it was a "serious grown up film". However, I've since mellowed and regard it as an interesting if contrived work. I am intrigued however by your comment that "soul and the abstract" was removed from films, could you explain this more?

e_e

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fingers crossed.

Yeah let's keep making our 100 million+ blockbusters look like glorified TV episodes.

kunst nugget

e_e wrote: »

I kind of agree and worry we'll never get a superhero film of the same scope and ambition again. It was maybe the last one to really hit me on that purely cinematic level, far beyond the TV quality stuff we've been getting lately.

It looked great but some of those really cinematic moments were kind of daft if you gave them any thought. Space Avalanche had a great strip about one of those moments.

Mrs Shuttleworth

nyarlothothep wrote: »

When the film came out I was originally non plussed by its overt seriousness which was compromised by the fact that it was about people in suits and even more dismissive of the hype it attained with people echoing each other, saying it was a "serious grown up film". However, I've since mellowed and regard it as an interesting if contrived work. I am intrigued however by your comment that "soul and the abstract" was removed from films, could you explain this more?

Thx, will reply here properly later on.

the purple tin

I wouldn't rate TDK or the Nolan trilogy that highly. A number of things let them down badly, the main one being the absence of Aunt Harriet :mad:

deadybai

Begins was an excellent film but didnt leave you with a fullfillness as it was the first movie. TDK was an amazing film with incredible acting especially by Ledger. TDKR was the worse out of the three (although I only seen it when it came out) but still a good movie.

For me TDK is the greatest movie the last 10-15 years. It is original in that no film is similar to it. Films that are groundbreaking at the time of release are generally given a high rating. Same goes for music.

Barely There

It's not even in my top 5 Christopher Nolan Films.

I'd rank Memento, Batman Begins, Prestige, Inception and Interstellar all ahead of it in terms of how much I enjoyed the movies (though not necessarily in that order).

Never really understood the fanboy/IMDB love that TDK receives - it's a very good movie, little bit on the long side, but certainly overrated

sm213

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

+1 for candy
Ned Kelly is quite good too.

pixelburp

Anytime I see any open question that ends with "of all time?", the answer is almost invariably "No, of course not". Sort of like Betteridge's law of headlines *. You can substitute the Dark Knight with just about any other highly-praised film and create the same argument and answer.

Yeah the Dark Knight has its flaws, some more prominent than others, and certainly the death of Heath Ledger practically guaranteed its cult status and broad fame, but if you didn't make much of the film, it doesn't invalidate the love the film might otherwise engender in people; it just gives you a unique perspective and shows how yet again film is an art and utterly subjective. Overrated? Given how flexible the concept of a consensus can be, 'overrated' is a pretty redundant term in many respect.

The Dark Knight's a striking, ambitious yet flawed film and I suspect will remain so once the era of the superhero film has passed and proper hindsight kicks in. I'd still think it's one of the last true epics of recent years, despite the gloss coming off it as time passed; so while I still love the big car-chase midway through, I can't help but notice how colossally awful the editing of the scene actually is.


[*] "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Mousewar

I think for a lot of people it was their first time watching a film with mass appeal (a superhero film) that was actually good independent of its genre. Usually, that whole genre is full of unrealistic, badly written nonsense. Of course, compared to wider cinema it's not particularly amazing - it's just that compared to what they usually watch it was.
Hmmm, that does sound quite condescending but I'm sticking with it.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

Wrong way around tbh. At least Snyder has a distinctive visual style, you seriously couldn't watch a scene out of context and say "That's by Bryan Singer!"

he can have all the visual style he wants, hes makes muck, michael bay has a distinctive style to, so what, doesnt mean anything, bay has a far better filmography than synder even with 4 transformers films under his belt, tarantino also has a distinctive style, as do the coens, fincher, etc, everyone has a style,

superman returns was better film than man of steel, in my opinion, i know thats not the way its supposed to be, yet here i am, and im by no means saying superman returns is good,

hilarious that so far in the thread pulp fiction, goodfellas and the dark knight, 3 of the greatest films made in the last 3 decades are all overrated, ive actually heard people say these are some of the worst films that they have EVER seen, i mean jesus ****ing christ, what are you standards for films, if you disliked it fair enough, but the worst film youve ever seen, come on,

a great film is a great film, they dont have to be numbered 1-10 or 1-100, there are literally hundreds of great films out there, thousands even, it doesnt have to literally be the greatest film that you have ever seen, just great, thatll do,

bur

It is my least favourite of Nolan's trilogy but it's still freaking awesome.

blue note

I retry much agree with the OP, although I'd put no faith in imdb ratings.

One other thing I think about the film is that I don't really regard it as a comic book film. It's far more an action film with characters from batman in it. This isn't really a negative, I think it's a great action film.

e_e

don ramo wrote: »

he can have all the visual style he wants, hes makes muck, michael bay has a distinctive style to, so what, doesnt mean anything, bay has a far better filmography than synder even with 4 transformers films under his belt, tarantino also has a distinctive style, as do the coens, fincher, etc, everyone has a style,

Your counter-argument here doesn't refute anything I said. I don't even particularly like Snyder's films but he is unquestionably an auteur with a distinctive style that links all of his films together, the opposite of a hack (as in a director for hire with no style, originality or vision) if anything.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

Your counter-argument here doesn't refute anything I said. I don't even particularly like Snyder's films but he is unquestionably an auteur with a distinctive style that links all of his films together, the opposite of a hack (as in a director for hire with no style, originality or vision) if anything.

im not trying to refute anything, im just saying most top directors have a distinctive style, snyder is by no means special, and just cause someone has style doesnt mean they cant be a hack, and who cares if his films link style, visual is only part of the process, and at that a lot of snyders stuff is CG, so its his CGI people who make the visuals, by his request, and not his eye that gives us whats on screen,

and i was on about overall filmaking talent, that singer is the better director, i like nice visuals, i like a good coherent film better,

Earthhorse

IMDB is a terrible way to judge a movie, and mostly reflects pop culture classics which sometimes also happen to be genuinely good films. Leaving that aside my understanding is that when TDK die hards saw that it wasn't going to clinch the number one spot on IMDB they organised a campaign to vote Goodfellas down, thus removing it from the top spot; pathetic but somewhat related to why I don't like TDK, or Begins, which has been touched upon already and that is that it takes itself seriously. Too seriously, really is the issue.

The Joker certainly doesn't have to be a jokester character but in every carnation I've seen him, from the cartoon, to the comics, to Tim Burton's take, he is funny and unhinged. In Nolan's universe he's almost exclusively unhinged. That does make him rather one dimensional, though I do think Ledger is the best thing on screen during the whole thing. By ridding the Joker of this character trait I think it makes him less dynamic and more obvious. In Burton's Batman I understand that the man I'm laughing at (with) is the bad guy and severely disturbed, in Nolan's I'm not laughing at all but instead he seems to want to say "Don't you get it; this character called the Joker is actually unhinged!". Yes, I do get it, Christopher, you won't let me not.

To add to that, I really don't think Bale is a good Batman or Bruce. In a way, he's the epitome of what's wrong with the film. It feels like he's trying really hard and everything is too obvious. There's no lightness of touch or subtlety in the whole thing. Mrs Shuttleworth covered a lot of how I feel about it by saying it's a somewhat soulless affair.

As for the action, I didn't think it was exciting at all. My primary reaction watching this film in the cinema was one of boredom. And Gotham doesn't feel like anything other than a generic "big city". Very much a character in the comics and 90's Batman it just never comes to life in Nolan's movies. And it's not like he doesn't grant himself enough time to allow that happen.

So yes, very much an overrated film in my book but that's partly due to a vociferous minority who couldn't bear to see anything be regarded as better than it.

enfant terrible

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.

Agreed, a disturbing character doesn't have to be one dimensional.

Look at Christian's Bale character in American Psycho.

He's disturbing buy there's much more to his character that just being crazy.

Mickeroo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Agreed, a disturbing character doesn't have to be one dimensional.

Look at Christian's Bale character in American Psycho.

He's disturbing buy there's much more to his character that just being crazy.

Patrick Bateman isn't a villain in that story though he's the main focus of a character study, I think if they had tried to give that level of depth to Joker he would have lost all of his threat. Compare Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs to the one in the sequels/prequels, once they started giving him back story and motivation he lost what made him compelling in the first place.

enfant terrible

Mickeroo wrote: »

Patrick Bateman isn't a villain in that story though he's the main focus of a character study, I think if they had tried to give that level of depth to Joker he would have lost all of his threat. Compare Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs to the one in the sequels/prequels, once they started giving him back story and motivation he lost what made him compelling in the first place.

Possible, still doesn't stop the Joker been a pretty uninteresting character compared to Bateman.

Earthhorse

Mickeroo wrote: »

Compare Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs to the one in the sequels/prequels, once they started giving him back story and motivation he lost what made him compelling in the first place.

Lecter is not on screen for much of Silence of the Lambs compared to the Joker's huge role in TDK. You can't have a character on screen so long and not flesh him out a bit further. Well, you can, but in my opinion it didn't really work as well as a result.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Great production but didn't find it kept my interest

Mickeroo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Possible, still doesn't stop the Joker been a pretty uninteresting character compared to Bateman.

Personal preference I suppose, I personally think Joker is more the Paul Allen of TDK than the Patrick Bateman though.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Lecter is not on screen for much of Silence of the Lambs compared to the Joker's huge role in TDK. You can't have a character on screen so long and not flesh him out a bit further. Well, you can, but in my opinion it didn't really work as well as a result.

I didn't mean to imply their roles were the same, but I don't agree a character needs to be fleshed out to be compelling either, particularly an antagonist.

enfant terrible

Mickeroo wrote: »

Personal preference I suppose, I personally think Joker is more the Paul Allen of TDK than the Patrick Bateman though.

Interesting why do you see him like Paul Allen, he seemed pretty normal just more but more successful than Bateman.

Mickeroo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Interesting why do you see him like Paul Allen, he seemed pretty normal just more but more successful than Bateman.

I think Allen was the spark that pushes Bateman further towards the edge, much the same way Joker does Batman. They're very different films but if a comparison had to be made Bateman is closer to Batman than he is to Joker in terms of context for me.

Ardent

Mickeroo wrote: »

Compare Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs to the one in the sequels/prequels, once they started giving him back story and motivation he lost what made him compelling in the first place.

That is a really good point! Very true.

kunst nugget

Mickeroo wrote: »

Compare Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs to the one in the sequels/prequels, once they started giving him back story and motivation he lost what made him compelling in the first place.

For some reason that reminds me of the quote from Stephen King...

"I am of the last quarter of the last generation that remembers radio drama as an active force - a dramatic art form with its own set of reality. I was in attendance, during my younger years, at the deathbed of radio as a strong fictional medium.

"Nothing is so frightening as what's behind the closed door. The audience holds its breath along with the protagonist as she/he (more often she) approaches that door. The protagonist throws it open, and there is a ten-foot-tall bug. The audience screams, but this particular scream has an oddly relieved sound to it. 'A bug ten feet tall is pretty horrible', the audience thinks, 'but I can deal with a ten-foot-tall bug. I was afraid it might be a hundred feet tall'.

"The thing is, with such things as Dachau, Hiroshima, the Children's Crusade, mass starvation in Cambodia - the human consciousness can deal with almost anything... which leaves the writer or director of the horror tale with a problem with is the psychological equivalent of inventing a faster-than-light space drive in the face of E=MC2.
There is and always has been a school of horror writers (I am not among them - it is playing to tie rather than to win) who believe that the way to beat this rap is never to open the door at all.

Ardent

tigger123 wrote: »

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?

Yeah I'm a little shallow like that.
I just can't see Bruce Wayne, multi-millionaire business man and notorious former playboy, being attracted to Maggie Gylenhall (sp?). I thought Rachel's role was miscast, sorry about that officer, take me away!

Best in the trilogy by a mile imo. On second viewing, there are a ton of plot holes that I somehow overlooked. But on first viewing, I was completely gripped by the whole thing from start to finish.

The third film was a complete snorefest imo. None of it made sense either.

Jon Stark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Best in the trilogy by a mile imo. On second viewing, there are a ton of plot holes that I somehow overlooked. But on first viewing, I was completely gripped by the whole thing from start to finish.

The third film was a complete snorefest imo. None of it made sense either.

What are the ton of plot holes out of curiosity.

e_e

don ramo wrote: »

im just saying most top directors have a distinctive style, snyder is by no means special, and just cause someone has style doesnt mean they cant be a hack,

But the very definition of hack is somebody producing lazy, derivative, cookie cutter work. You may not like Snyder but he really doesn't fall into that category at all.

don ramo wrote: »

and i was on about overall filmaking talent, that singer is the better director, i like nice visuals, i like a good coherent film better,

Have to disagree there. I'd take incoherent but very visually interesting over coherent but dull any day of the week, and I say this as someone who liked Days of Future Past for instance.

Jon Stark

Jon Stark wrote: »

What are the ton of plot holes out of curiosity.

One that comes to mind is the joker's school bus joining the row of school buses right after a bank heist, driving out through a hole in the side of the bank. As if it was all part of his amazing plan, where realistically its very far fetched that he'd drive away like that.

Jon Stark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One that comes to mind is the joker's school bus joining the row of school buses right after a bank heist, driving out through a hole in the side of the bank. As if it was all part of his amazing plan, where realistically its very far fetched that he'd drive away like that.

Wouldn't describe that as a plot hole, more a flash set piece.

As daft as Bane's introduction really, except Bane's didn't do half the job that the TDK intro did in establishing the character.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

But the very definition of hack is somebody producing lazy, derivative, cookie cutter work. You may not like Snyder but he really doesn't fall into that category at all.

go watch sucker punch and come back to me, and tell me time and attention was put into it,

snyder did the remake (not original) of dawn of the dead, which was a great film, and then he just went downwards after that, 300 was good, watchmen was terrible (finishing it was a life achievement for myself), i didnt see legend of the guardians, then he made sucker punch an actual contender for one of the worst films ive ever seen, and then to top is off we have man of steel, i mean bar snyder being there to hold my hand and tell me whats happening in front of me he couldnt have force fed the storyline anymore,

lazy directing, most films you dont really click that the story is being handed to you until maybe 3 or 4 viewings in, this guy has it right off the bat, the vast majority you may never notice it,

e_e

I've seen Sucker Punch and it's lousy, still doesn't make Snyder a hack though.

The thing is various opinions are available on his movies but I think it's pretty damn clear that everything he does is personal to him and distinctly his own. Also I'd take Watchmen for all its imperfections over the glossy and boring Marvel movies we've been getting of late.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

I've seen Sucker Punch and it's lousy, still doesn't make Snyder a hack though.

The thing is various opinions are available on his movies but I think it's pretty damn clear that everything he does is personal to him and distinctly his own. Also I'd take Watchmen for all its imperfections over the glossy and boring Marvel movies we've been getting of late.

the only decent film he made was a remake, the other somewhat decent one was adapted from historical events,

the only personal film he made was sucker punch, everything else hes made is either a remake or adapted from something else, and even sucker punch was co written, so still not his baby,

at least the marvel films entertain to a degree, and have coherence, sure their cookie cutter stuff, but not like their pretending to be more than they are,

this could go on forever, simple for me, snyder will never hold a candle to the likes of nolan, singer or fincher,

e_e

I don't know what you're trying to convince me of here, even if I absolutely loathed Snyder's movies (they just vary from bad to alright for me) I wouldn't call him a hack under any definition of the word. That is simply what I am saying here.

Also you must know that "entertaining" is maybe the most subjective thing you could say about a movie. In Marvel's case (although not all the time) I'm particularly not entertained by bland visuals, contrived universe building, repetitive action, exposition and a made-by-committee version of what an epic action movie should be.

Also I'd sooner take question with Singer being placed alongside Nolan and Fincher than Snyder. You couldn't point out a Singer scene from that of a whole line of director-for-hires. Even his best film is more notable for its writing.

shazzerman

No. The Shawshank Redemption is.

don ramo

e_e wrote: »

I don't know what you're trying to convince me of here, even if I absolutely loathed Snyder's movies (they just vary from bad to alright for me) I wouldn't call him a hack under any definition of the word. That is simply what I am saying here.

Also you must know that "entertaining" is maybe the most subjective thing you could say about a movie. In Marvel's case (although not all the time) I'm particularly not entertained by bland visuals, contrived universe building, repetitive action, exposition and a made-by-committee version of what an epic action movie should be.

Also I'd sooner take question with Singer being placed alongside Nolan and Fincher than Snyder. You couldn't point out a Singer scene from that of a whole line of director-for-hires. Even his best film is more notable for its writing.

im not trying to convince you of anything, all i said was snyder is a hack and you decided to question that my opinion, is not my opinion,

i wouldnt say the visuals in snyders films are any better or worse than marvels, just the tone of his films are darker, whereas marvels are lighter, if marvel wanted im sure they have the capability to do whatever they like visually, but when your churning out billion dollar films why would you wanna change, i do agree 7 years into the universe building it does get a little grating,

hell look at ex-machina, unbelievable CG, blows away most of what hollywood produces every year,

oh i just threw singer in for the laugh, and just to say hes a better director than snyder , bit of a jump then to the other 2,

The Golden Miller

The TDK is a funny one in my opinion. I think it fully deserves it's 9/10 and Ledgers version of the Joker will never be topped. In saying that, it has no rewatchability. Dunno why, just find it hard to watch again, despite it being brilliant. I suppose some films and shows are just like that. Ed Norton's Hulk was average, but I found myself watching it a few times and now think it's very good

IvaBigWun

Saipanne wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhkNLHictW8

Richard Hillman

I thought it was a great movie but the Jokers masterplan was too OTT. Everything after him escaping custody was too much. Yeah OK, the guy is an evil genius but the stuff with the boat required waaaay to much planning and knowing exactly what was going to happen whilst being hounded down by Batman and the entire police department.

MadDog76

Saipanne wrote: »

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

Different strokes...

Now go home and get your f**king shinebox!!!

faceman

Some films I strongly feel are massively overrated:

Pulp Fiction / Resevoir Dogs - no character development. Nonsensical scenes. Emotionally lacking.

The Usual Suspects - a tale of convenience.

Independence Day - don't get me started.

The Avengers - Lacks charm

ricero

I adore the opening of the dark knight with the bank robbery and the joker reveal. Probably my favourite opening ever to a movie