‘Dark Knight’: Get over it
OK, so it’s been a week since the Academy Award nominations were released – a week since the wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments began over the supposedly egregious snub of “The Dark Knight” from the major (read: non-technical) awards, with the exception of Heath Ledger’s nomination.
What – no best picture? No best director?
Really? How about most super-duper movie ever in the history of undiscriminating fanboys?
Talk about misplaced outrage. Better that energy went to questioning the way the Oscar snubbed Sally Hawkins, or “Gomorra” as best foreign film.
Perhaps people could apply that effort instead toward a campaign to convince Mickey Rourke to stop even joking about participating in Wrestlemania. (I have four words for Mickey Rourke regarding how to blow his comeback after “The Wrestler”: Burt Reynolds. “Boogie Nights.”)
So let me put this is as simply as possible:
“The Dark Knight” was not a great movie. It was only half a good movie.
It was not as good as “Batman Begins.”
It was not as consistently entertaining as “Iron Man.”
There’s a solid 90-minute movie buried within the 150-minute slog that is “The Dark Knight.” And even that wouldn’t have been worthy of an Oscar nomination.
Personally, I’m still trying to figure out why so many people got so worked up about this bloated, self-important movie. It kind of blew, in the same way that “Spider-man 3” kind of blew.
Sure, it was dark and broody. And then, for a change of pace, it was darker and broodier.
“The Dark Knight” had more prelims than a Don King undercard. You had to sit through Batman slugging it out with what seemed like dozens of faceless, generic henchmen before he actually worked his way to the Joker. It was as if Batman tried to cut in line to buy Springsteen tickets – and then had to take on everyone else in the line – before confronting the Boss himself.
Also: If you want to make a movie about Two-Face, go ahead and make one. But don’t graft it on to the Batman-Joker movie, like some weird Ray Milland/Roosevelt Grier clone. By the time Aaron Eckhart was burned into a special-effects nightmare worthy of early Sam Raimi, you mostly wished he’d just die and shut up. Or spin off to his own movie.
Too much of this over-earnest outing was devoted to convincing people to take it seriously. It practically screamed, “This is literature! This is art, by God!”
Meanwhile, writer-director Christopher Nolan left out a couple of key elements: fun, for one. Excitement, for another.
And by the way: If I wanted to listen to Nolan’s dissertation on the nature of heroism in modern society, I would have gone to grad school with him.
End of sermon.
Now let’s unite behind a cause that is crucial to our survival as a species: stopping Steve Martin from ever making another Inspector Clouseau movie.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Wow, not a single comment. Gee, made an impact?
Um, sorry but you are talking out of your ass here.
““The Dark Knight” was not a great movie. It was only half a good movie.”
Oh you mean not as good as:
Godfather III
Fatal Attraction
The Cider House Rules
Good Will Hunting
Dances with Wolves
Titanic (half a good movie too, but tears made it valid? They like the movies that make them cwy)
The Prince of Tides
Missing
I could go on but you get the idea. At least I hope you do. A much better list than the films nominated for Best Picture is the list of the films NOT nominated for Best Picture. Come on, buddy, get with the program.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Here’s a newsflash, Marshall- the movie was about Two Face. It wasn’t grafted on to the Batman/Joker movie. Just because you didn’t buy Eckhart’s performance and wished the character would die or shut up, doesn’t mean you know the movie’s intent. He’s the character that is challenged the most and transforms the most in the entire arc. Sure Batman and The Joker are the flashier parts but the movie was called “The Dark Knight” for a reason.
And the film is more economical than you give it credit for. Bloated? “Crash” was bloated and it was a much shorter movie.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
THANK YOU, Exactly.
The film is far far from perfect, and He Nailed It.
1) The Slog
2) The third, unfinished, not fully realized film that was the Two faced Villain.
3) Is this The Batman, the grand legend we know and love or a real world crime thriller. Pick one film and do it well.
I actually wouldn’t have minded it if nabbed a nomination due to the meek offering of films this year. but lordy, the plot go so redundant, i tuned out, stopped caring.
Anyhoo, there were some outstanding moments about the film that i really liked: before every joker attack, there was this eerie sound. Like a machine whirring, it’s one note, and it gets louder and louder and creates this wonderful dreadful foreshadowing. That was well done.
January 31st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Fail. You suck at movies.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Sorry, Sasha, but just because other mediocre films were nominated for Best Picture does not mean that we should hope future mediocre films get nominated. Godfather III getting nominated does not make Dark Knight a better movie.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Indeed! I couldn’t agree more. I mean, was there really anyone awake during the last hour of this movie? I certainly wasn’t. And while Ledger turned in a pretty good job in a mediocre movie, he was hardly the best thing to walk the face of the earth as he is being made out to be now.
Folks really need to get a grip.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:07 am
WOW, you’re a complete fucking idiot. You probably should consider ending you’re life.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:26 am
A perfect summation of a not-so-bad movie!
The flick opened great. No problems with the bank robbery.
The next 60 minutes were a waste. It should have jumped straight to the bus chase scene.
An additional point — WHAT THE HECK IS WITH CHRISTIAN BALE’S VOICE?
Most awkward gravel voice since Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge.
Agree 100 percent with the Two Face arc. The Dark Knight was, for some reason, a movie and a half.
Finally, if, as Nilco Walker says, the movie was about Two Face? Well then, that movie sucked.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:35 am
AMEN!!!!!!
February 1st, 2009 at 4:12 am
OMG. You’re joking, right? I can’t remember a movie that kept me on the edge of my seat like Dark Knight did. Maybe Aliens. and yeah I’m old enough to be in a seat to see it in a theater in 1986. Who cares about Oscars. This movie rocked, and Heath Ledger was a huge part of that. His character was so intense and he played it so well it was chilling to watch. Maybe if you spent more time reflecting on the actual movie instead of thinking of lines of sarcasm about it…Dark Knight did as intended. It entertained. With an E.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
So the TDK was not but it earned 1 billion Dollars worldwide?
and it got 94% Fresh on Rotten tomatoes but its not a good movie?
it got voted to 4th on IMDBs top250 but it sucks?
oh and The Reader iz a better movie than TDK?
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
If “The Dark Knight” was not a great movie, then why should directors even bother making films? There is more to a movie than what entertains you, one person out of billions. Okay, you did not like it because it wasn’t the campy happy-go-lucky Batman of your childhood. You know what? Batman isn’t campy. Batman isn’t happy-go-lucky. Batman isn’t fun. Batman was never fun. Batman is cold-blooded murder, about the line between justice and vengeance, about the gray area between good and evil, and about having two lives but neither of them being your own. Harvey Dent was not the only two-face in the movie, you know.
And speaking of Harvey Dent, why you see him as an annoyance, I’ll never know. He’s been threatened, beaten, and punished to insanity, and you just want him to die already.
Another point, Spider-Man 3 was a failed film because they relaxed far too much, took one too many creative liberties and made Spiderman what it isn’t. The Dark Knight took Batman and returned it to its core, just as Batman Begins did.
Something tells me that you didn’t even go to see the movie, but rather simply read the plot summary on wikipedia. Most of what you say has no basis, no fact to support it. It really sounds like you’re just putting The Dark Knight down to get attention.
Continuing on this, why insult Steve Martin when you are talking about Bruce Wayne? They have no relation to each other whatsoever. Besides that, I think that Steve did a great job on Clouseau. If we want to put him in the same boat as The Dark Knight, then fine. I think that Steve Martin dealt with Clouseau’s clumsy luck very well and performed what could only be called an homage to the original by Peter Sellers.
I’ve been reading your posts for a while now, but I can assure you that, if this is what I can expect, senseless unbased degradation, then I can assure you that I will find other blogs that support crediting good films as good films rather than your slog.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Um I’m sorry but the crap films nominated for best picture and director are a footnote on the cinematic influence The Dark Knight has brought film. Your article makes you sound like a really superficial person. You obviously have a hard time letting go of reality to enjoy any movie. This movie didn’t make more money than IRONMAN because it was less entertaining, it made more money because it was more entertaining and for longer. Your head is up your ass and your foot is in your mouth. The academy will never recognize true quality if there is shred of action or if it’s based off a comic book. The facts are straight, you have no taste and have the attention span of a 3 year old little girl. This film was the best movie of the year and possibly of the decade. Sorry you missed that. Mr Nolan deserved better than what he was dealt but the cynical geysers who call themselves film critics are always going to have a problem when something cannot be denied. The fact is this movie was given rave reviews from critics and fans alike; everyone else was just hating on it to get attention. It is truly a shame when small people who think they are big say stupid things so people listen. Idiots will always agree because it’s cool; but the thinking man will tactfully disagree and call a spade a spade. You might want to join the hollywood foreign press or perhaps the bollywood scene. It might be better suited for your small thinking mentality. Go rent movies from the library because I don’t want to see or hear senile characters like yourself at the movies or in my video store. If you truly didn’t like this film; ask yourself these two questions. Did you see it in IMAX? Did you see it on Blu ray? Otherwise you didn’t see this film the way it was meant to be watched.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Marshall, do you get the impression that people may disagree with you on this one?
Golly wolly, I loves this internet.