Comments | reapersaurus: The Dark Knight review (long analysis)

reapersaurus

The Dark Knight review (long analysis)

Aug 01, 2008 12:51

The Dark Knight is the most overrated "superhero" film of all time.
I can't believe the incredibly overblown, unjustified hype this film is getting.

I say "superhero" because TDK is quite simply, a super-spy film/crime drama. They basically turned the genre into The Bourne Identity. Lots of people plotting and double-crossing and out-guessing the out ( Read more... )

Comments 15

toryadore August 2 2008, 08:58:35 UTC

Actually, as much as I enjoyed the movie and love Batman, I could count myself at least 4 places they could have ended the movie. Honestly I thought it went on a bit too long. There were plot holes everywhere and flow problems along with scenes that didn't belong and didn't make sense. I would say it was far from solid story writing. It felt like they just kept adding things on instead of making a cohesive story.

But yes, I still enjoyed it due in part to the acting abilities of Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, and Magie Gyllenhal, who should have been Rachel in the first one.

I agree with John on a lot of the points he hit upon; not all, but quite a lot of them. Was it entertaining though and worth seeing on the big screen? I still would have to say it was worth it.

Dark Knight stayingamused August 5 2008, 03:54:27 UTC

Thanks for writing this up. I finally got around to seeing "The Dark Knight" yesterday. After all the hype, I was underwhelmed. Yes, it had some great moments, stunts, performance, and dialog. But you are right, the plot was a mess. There were so many things in the movie that should have been cut as they just confused things and made it overly long. Why did Batman recover that bullet, go through all those tests involving shooting a mini-gun (what was up with that?) and taking fingerprints? What was the point? The whole thing went nowhere. There were other, similar things that slip my mind right now ( ... )

Re: Dark Knight stayingamused August 5 2008, 08:20:28 UTC

First of all the Joker needs Batman to exist because when he explains that Batman "completes" him, he is addressing the principle of binaries (used widely in literature). A binary are two opposing forces that need each other to exist because they counter one another. Similar to two domino pieces leaning against one another. Batman (Good, justice, hope, people are inherently good) vs. Joker (chaos, evil, believes people are inherently evil). Without one part of the binary equation, the purpose of the other ceases to exist. The film is much deeper than what you are mentioning above in your comments. How can you say that it diminished the character? You should read between the lines much more than you did, not just the surface basic elements. Also, this is a comic book movie so when people escape uninjured or the Joker is poorly guarded, this does not take away from the film. It does not have to be completely realistic. The Joker is unharmed because he a force of nature (chaos, evil), more than a man. What he represents is larger ( ... )

Re: Dark Knight stayingamused August 5 2008, 15:22:52 UTC

Thank you for your response. Obviously this is a subjective matter on which it is not possible to reach agreement through debate: you saw the movie and had a satisfying experience, I saw the movie and had a somewhat satisfying, somewhat frustrating and confused experience. I will have to see the movie again when it comes out on DVD to reconcile my confusion about whether the Joker seemed to want to destroy or preserve Batman ( ... )

Re: Dark Knight rpmiller August 6 2008, 19:24:49 UTC

I just wanted to add that if Batman has one rule and that is not to kill, how does he reconcile the fact that he obviously purposefully and with malice killed Ra's al Ghul in the first movie? Does he justify it by saying he killed himself? If that was the case, than why not do it again with the Joker? Why didn't he save Ra's al Ghul the same way he saved the Joker if he doesn't kill anyone? I think those are pretty important questions.

rpmiller August 6 2008, 19:31:19 UTC

I finally read your review, and agree with a lot of it. There are some things that I don't agree with, but for the most part I do. When I brought up my problems with the movie and included both your points and points others have made on a forum that I frequent I was summarily virtually hung and accused of being contentious. Note that this was after saying that I actually enjoyed the movie to a better extent, but definitely don't feel that it is superior to some of the other movies that have come out this summer. I PM'd a member of the forum that has professional training in psychology, not a clinical psychologist but he knows pretty much all the same stuff and knows me fairly well, to evaluate the thread and give me some insights. Here is his response:

rpmiller August 6 2008, 19:32:56 UTC

You know, having read through the thread, I think it's one of those things that I've been thinking about recently regarding communication in internet fora, and I think it has to do with memory formation and top-down vs. bottom up processing in our minds and how neural networks work ( ... )

rpmiller August 6 2008, 19:33:38 UTC

And the remainder of what he said because it wouldn't fit in one reply:

In addition to that, numerous people have overlooked the reasons that have been posted as to why a change was made. The reason? Because like I said, they are filtering top-down, and don't want to see that.

Oddly enough, I don't think this is new, and unfortunately, I don't think that merely being aware of it is enough to end its frustrating effect. I suspect that as long as people have been talking, this has happened. Furthermore being aware of it simply makes you want to smack people around just a bit more--or maybe that's just me.

reapersaurus August 7 2008, 20:24:24 UTC

Thanks for that fascinating info!
The way that people (especially on the internet) process information IS a big problem. Nice to read some studied descriptors for what we see all the time.

I'm curious if you would relate more about what people said to you on the boards you frequent. "summarily virtually hung"? let me hear about that... ;)

It's always fascinating to me when fanboys obliterate reality, displaying their sycophantic delusions, all the while telling you that you were an idiot and missed all the answers or "didn't get it", of course they don't answer the questions/problems you brought up which becomes all the more interesting when the others gang up and make-believe that your points were discredited (when they just ignored what you actually spent the time making clear).

It's an unreal social dynamic - one that has to be seen to be believed.

Thread 5

What? anonymous December 21 2008, 10:15:09 UTC

Ok, did you even watch the movie ( ... )

Re: What? anonymous December 24 2008, 21:15:56 UTC

Dude, nothing else to be said.

Seconded.

Um, these are comic book movies anonymous December 28 2008, 23:07:59 UTC

There's a point where one has to suspend disbelief. Honestly, there's definitely a huge dollop of disdain present in this entry against TDK and people who are fans of Batman ( ... )

Re: Um, these are comic book movies reapersaurus January 14 2009, 19:43:52 UTC

I have no clue where the last 3 entries came from, since I don't advertise this blog anywhere. I'm kinda mystified where someone would have linked to this entry to get Batman apologists stereotypically ignoring almost everything I detailed, and then making unconvincing and unpersuasive responses. (e.g. "what police precincts have metal detectors"? uhhhh... all of them ( ... )