The Dark Knight, I want to know what all the fuss is about

Your little rant would make sense if I had said "none of the critics mention Ledger at all" but unfortunately for you I didn't.

And a couple of lines in a review does, indeed, count as barely mentioning. Certainly not justifying the moronic stampede to see Ledger's last performance.

And in the context of those reviews, my point about there being a lot more elements in the film praised than just Ledger easily stanRAB. Unless you seriously think a couple of lines or *gasp* a paragraph, about one of the lead actors in ANY way supports your claim that
 
Believe me sweetheart, I like to rant.

Unfortunately for you, that was not a 'rant'.



'Key performance'? 'Legder's movie'? 'Shocking, indelible'? 'Masterpiece'?

Those quoted supelatives reduce 'a couple of lines' to 1 or 2 worRAB. But given that they are key worRAB in the critical analisys of the film I think you are somewhat missing the key points of the reviews.



I'm not sure I get your point here, can you clarify?
 
I watched TDK tonight and felt a little let down. I prefered Batman Begins to be honest.

I think I was expecting too much from the film and so a disappointment was inevitable.
 
I am guessing that you had no intention of seeing this but simply fell for the hype?

Because I think this film was for Batman fans that enjoyed Batman Begins and were looking forward to the sequel.
 
I don't usually unleash scathing attacks on movies, as I can appreciate the hard work and effort that goes into making a film, but I can't actually think of anything positive to say about this one at all, apart from 'cool special effects'.

Sitting through this 2 and a half hour stinker was painful, and it honestly felt like a form of torture. I've only ever turned a movie off once, as I feel that you can't honestly review a movie that you have only watched 20 minutes of, so I stuck with it.

Firstly, there were too many characters and way too many transitions. Quality, not quantity should have been considered here. Instead of detailed focus on one or two situations, these guys choose to try and juggle about 5 or 6 scenarios at once, switching scenes every couple of seconRAB, and its enough to send a viewer into a dizzy frenzy. One hour in, and there's still people turning up and you're like 'who the f**k is this?'

Secondly, there were way too many annoying and somewhat irrelevant subplots, that just distracted you from the main plot (whatever that was supposed to be).

The character interaction was non exsistent, and the writing was terrible. None of the characters had any chemistry, and I'm blaming that on the script, rather than the actors.

Christan Bale was as wooden as a pirates leg, and the overly deep robotic voice was cringeworthy.

Overall this film lacked depth and direction. Fair enough, most action movies don't have any depth but the Dark Knight was tragic.

Special effects were the main attraction here, therefore storyline, detail and character development took a back seat, unfortunately.

With enough advertising and hype, even the most dismal tripe can turn into big money and become a hollywood sensation. This is the case here.

The Dark Knight talks the talk but certainly does not walk the walk.

I wouldn't sit though this rubbish again if someone paid me.

1/10 - ( I have to be fair and give one mark for the special effects)
 
all what you wrote was fair comment but was let down by an dreadfull score of 1/10, you are either stupid or ARE Forrest Gump, I take that back, gump had some brains at least.....:D

g
 
The movie for me was more about Aaron Eckhart's character than Heath Ledger's (but agree he was tremendous). The journey of Dent was the centre/soul of the movie.
 
Yes, i have seen Batman Begins, but some frienRAB who i may be going with tonight haven't and i just wondered it it was really necessary to watch the first one to 'get' this one. :)
 
Exactly, that's what I got out of it. Classic case of good guy (Dent) gone bad (Two-Face) thanks to the influence of another (Joker). That was the whole point of the movie imo, corruption. The Joker wanted to prove that everybody is corruptable, even The White Knight who was Dent. It was only at the end that he (Joker) realised he couldn't corrupt one man, Batman.
 
Not to 'get it' necessarily but you don't get the full experience.

The characters and Batman are introduced in the first one and there are themes carried through. I really don't get why anyone would see this if they haven't seen the first one. You miss out on so much.
 
Somewhat controversial but I think Prison Break actor Robert Knepper should have been cast as the Joker, not Heath Ledger:

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/2069/dielaughingnotextyn6.jpg

Robert Knepper is one of the creepiest actors I've ever seen and he looks exactly like the Joker. I doubt there's any actor in the world more Joker looking than Knepper.

Ledger's Joker seems fantastic and a worthy 21st century version, but Knepper is more naturally creepy than Ledger. I hope he's given a chance and screentested if the Joker appears in a third Nolan Batman film.
 
Really?
That's ridiculous if that's what's happening.
The problem with the internet is that it's easy for fanbases to corrupt online polls in order to distort the perception of something.
 
Saw it for the first time last night and I agree with all of the first review above and most of the second one (although I didn't think it was a bad film). It did try to cram too much in and that made it seem like a very shallow film. It was very different to Batman Begins. I found Bale's portrayal of Batman poor in this one (like Jay Bigz said; "very wooden" and with no soul at all), and the film had completely lost all the 'gothic' feel of the previous films - it was very stark and modern. Heath Ledger's performance was exceptionally good but Christian Bale let it down very badly. But worth a second viewing sometime in the future I think.
 
Back
Top