Love-Hate Relationship with The Dark Knight

[Scott Taylor]

Didn't like it really. I liked Dark Knight Rises and Batman Begins better. DKR was way overly long, had that one "playing chicken" scene that just about makes me barf, lacked cohesion, and it wasn't enough of a Batman film for me. The Joker was good and had an unbeatable plan - but he's not the reason I watch a Batman film.

I appreciate that it was getting Batman to a point where the City no longer trusted him, to set up the third arc, and thats the only reason I care about it today.

[BeastieRunner]

I wish they'd zoom out on the action scenes from time-to-time. Especially when it's Batman.

[Jackalope89]

While an entertaining film, Heath Ledger's Joker just never felt like Joker to me. If they had called him say, Anarky, I would have been fine with that.

Probably the influence that the DC Animated Series had with Mark Hamill's Joker.

[DrNewGod]

I wish they'd zoom out on the action scenes from time-to-time. Especially when it's Batman.

Oddly, I didn't mind that. It.conveys how Batman would work: he strikes from ambush, out of the shadows, sucker punches his victims, never giving them a real good look. That not only gives a mortal better chances against numbers, but reinforces the frightening image that is his true advantage.

[Osiris-Rex]

While an entertaining film, Heath Ledger's Joker just never felt like Joker to me. If they had called him say, Anarky, I would have been fine with that.

Probably the influence that the DC Animated Series had with Mark Hamill's Joker.

I guess I'm not the only one that feels that way. He just came off as some random lunatic to me. I couldn't even tell if his face was supposed be damaged by chemicals or just face paint.
I think it was more that people were won over by Heath Ledger's Oscar winning performance than it was that this was the Joker he was playing. I'm not really sure how to say this,
all I can think of is if it were a lesser actor playing the character the same way I think people would have hated it and said that's not Joker. Ironically for me Jared Leto seemed more like
the Joker, but Leto isn't as good an actor and Ayer isn't as good a director as Nolan so hence the negative reaction

[TomServofan]

The film is foremost too long, as with most big blockbuster movies today that can't justify their length. Editing and etc I have issues with too. Pacing of course.

And I didn't care for the changes to Harvey's origin. The best part of the film is Ledger's Joker, which completely took me by surprise (I predicted his Joker would suck, but he lost himself in the role and it was a fantastically imagined alternate take).

What makes Scarface 1983 no different in terms of length?

[JBatmanFan05]

What makes Scarface 1983 no different in terms of length?

Scarface (1983) is an amazing towering lasting film that completely justifies its length IMHO. Not even close to my opinion/experience with The Dark Knight.

It's not about length, precisely. I love super long Fritz Lang silent films. It's about justifying that length. So many big blockbuster films, for me, just don't do nearly enough to justify their bloated length. Too little concern with economy. Studios feel these lengths are required to justify ticket prices or whatever. The art suffers.

My main problem with Nolan, macro level, is that he thinks his films are as interesting and well made as Kubrick's (one of his chief influences), Kubrick who did some longer films (not as many as I thought though), and I don't agree with Nolan or his fans on that.

[DrNewGod]

I guess I'm not the only one that feels that way. He just came off as some random lunatic to me. I couldn't even tell if his face was supposed be damaged by chemicals or just face paint.
I think it was more that people were won over by Heath Ledger's Oscar winning performance than it was that this was the Joker he was playing. I'm not really sure how to say this,
all I can think of is if it were a lesser actor playing the character the same way I think people would have hated it and said that's not Joker. Ironically for me Jared Leto seemed more like
the Joker, but Leto isn't as good an actor and Ayer isn't as good a director as Nolan so hence the negative reaction

In a sense, as with a lot of comic characters with that much history behind them, there's been more than one Joker. So that makes it hard to nail down beyond some pretty consistent images (purple and green costuming, white face, green hair, usually some sort of clown/playing card mashup feel) just who The Joker truly is, and the answer is likely to be a bit different depending on who you ask.

Personally, with a few exceptions, I tend to lean towards the characters' original appearance. In The Joker's case, he was a mysterious, cruel murderer with a mockingly comic exterior, and that was a lot like what Nolan and Ledger gave us.

[tjarvis]

I love the portrayal of Harvey Dent.

I hate the short shrifting of Two-Face (really only the TAS ever gets Two-Face right).

[BeastieRunner]

Oddly, I didn't mind that. It.conveys how Batman would work: he strikes from ambush, out of the shadows, sucker punches his victims, never giving them a real good look. That not only gives a mortal better chances against numbers, but reinforces the frightening image that is his true advantage.

I get it and loved it in parts but there were times that they could zoom out and show Batman letting loose. Hence, from time-to-time. My only real nitpick that doesn't revolve around Batman killing people.

[Midvillian1322]

I love the portrayal of Harvey Dent.

I hate the short shrifting of Two-Face (really only the TAS ever gets Two-Face right).

Yea Dent was cool and two face was alright for 25mins he existed.

[DrNewGod]

I love the portrayal of Harvey Dent.

I hate the short shrifting of Two-Face (really only the TAS ever gets Two-Face right).

Yea Dent was cool and two face was alright for 25mins he existed.

Ditto these. I was hoping film three would be a Two-Face story demonstrating that even if he couldn't save everyone, Bats fight was worth damn it.

Alas...

[Alan2099]

Honestly, I didn't like the Nolan movies at all. They felt like they were ashamed to be comic movies and lacked the extra over-the-topness that really makes Batman and his world what they were.

Plus Bale's voice sucked.

I appreciate that it was getting Batman to a point where the City no longer trusted him, to set up the third arc, and thats the only reason I care about it today.

The whole movie seemed to set up a sequel that they skipped completed. Batman takes the blame for a criminals action and the ploice and city hate him and hunt him now and ... then he just retires and the next movie picks up several years later where he's broken down.

While an entertaining film, Heath Ledger's Joker just never felt like Joker to me. If they had called him say, Anarky, I would have been fine with that.

I'm with you here. Joker never felt like Joker to me.

I think it was more that people were won over by Heath Ledger's Oscar winning performance than it was that this was the Joker he was playing. I'm not really sure how to say this,
all I can think of is if it were a lesser actor playing the character the same way I think people would have hated it and said that's not Joker.

I think a lot of people were won over by the fact that he died while making the movie. If Ledger had lived, I don't think people would have reacted half as strongly.

Frankly, I think we got a much better and stronger performance out of the guy who played Harvey Dent.... At least up until he became Two-Face. Then it was just him being talked into going on a killing rampage and and getting revenge on everyone EXCEPT the guy who disfigured him. All because the maniac that disfigured him said it would be a good idea.

And the "realistic" design of Two-Face just didn't work for me.

[AJBopp]

I think a lot of people were won over by the fact that he died while making the movie. If Ledger had lived, I don't think people would have reacted half as strongly.

This argument has never struck me as terribly authentic. Whether one agrees with the interpretation or not, the strength of Ledger's performance is simply undeniable. He brought astonishing nuance and subtlety to the role without losing the over-the-top lunacy the character requires. I'm inclined to go completely the opposite direction, actually. The reason he didn't get more credit than he actually did for the role (and what he got was considerable) was because it was a comic book part.

And he didn't die while making the movie.

[C_Miller]

It's a good movie, no doubt, but I don't think it is deserving of a lot of the hype it gets. It's one generational performance away from actually being a really dull movie. It's an overlong crime thriller that really could use some polishing towards the end. Storywise, it's really not all that different than your typical gangster film or Dirty Harry-esque Law and Order revenge film from the late 60s or 70s. But Heath Ledger just brought so much to the table as The Joker that he really elevates the movie. A lesser performance or removing The Joker entirely and no one would talk about this movie really.

The other thing that The Dark Knight that makes it deserving of praise is that it was really the first film to break from the Comic Book Movie formula. Now, I love Batman Begins and, it actually may be my favorite comic book movie ever, but it still more or less follows the typical CBM formula that existed at the time. Dark Knight was a game changer in that regard. While I stand by my criticisms of the film, it can't be denied that in this film, Nolan was the first to look at the possibilities of what you could get from a film based on a comic book. He gave his successors permission to think wildly about what a comic book film could be. He made them smarter. Without The Dark Knight, I don't think we have Logan nominated for a writing Oscar.

We are better off for it existing, but it's not one I go back to too often.