"The Dark Knight" - Sort of less impressed!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Because bassman is a smart dude - you on the other hand... I wonder about you. Chantix. Love of Piranha... that shit adds up to you being looney. Did Bassman like Piranha?

[LouCipherr]

Did Bassman like Piranha? Does it matter?

[Trin]

I didn't much care for Dark Kaniggit. I thought the plot was convoluted and goofy. It was too long. At 2 separate times I thought it was ending... and was disappointed it wasn't. I thought the acting was overall good. I thought Ledger was a nice reprise of Batman, although I like Nicholson better. I believe Keaton was the best Batman brought to the big screen yet. I have a hard time believing that Ledger's death propelled the movie to greatness... but I also have a hard time believing the movie stood solely on its own merits. How the movie did so well given any hype or circumstances is pretty mind-boggling to me.

[Neil]

Definitely the most overrated movie of the last decade, perhaps of all-time. What the? Is exagerating the new black?

[JonOfTheShred]

What the? Is exagerating the new black? I can't think of any other film close to as overrated as this one. Never have I hated on a movie and got more backlash than the Dark Knight. Every aspect of the film is overblown and over-celebrated by its fanboys. How about its 94% at Rotten Tomatoes? That ties it with the original Star Wars. Seriously? As good as STAR WARS? You can choose almost any scene in Star Wars and it'll have more substance and life than every scene from Dark Knight combined. The Dark Knight also hit the #1 spot on IMDB for quite a while, upstaging long victor "The Godfather." In a city of film-making, the Dark Knight doesn't deserve to be in the same building as the Godfather, nevermind the same room. Currently, it rests at #8. The 8th greatest movie of all-time? C'mon, it was all right at best. To summarize, here are some quick reasons why I personally think that the Dark Knight sucks. (And not none of this hostility is aimed at anyone here, I've just hated this movie with a passion since the first time I watched it and like to vent about why I think it sucks) All the movies themes are spoon-fed through cheesy dialogue. And not just in one heartfelt speech, not just in one witty anecdote session, not just in two or three angry rants...this happens AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. Then the fanboys will say the movie is too 'deep' for the detractors to understand. No, its not deep at all, they practically put dialogue bubbles on screen describing each characters motive in explicit, boring, pretentious detail. (Funny thing is, if they actually used the dialogue balloons, it'd be the closest thing they got to the actual comics. ) The action sucked. Name a good action scene from this movie. ONE. A single good fight scene, without the camera being too zoomed in to be able to see whats going on. Batman Begins actually had some decent choreographed action, but the Dark Knight had pretty much none. It tried too hard. Much like me trying too hard to describe my hate for this movie . Seriously though, this movie takes itself way too seriously, and is a complete drag because of it. Its so boring. Just because the movie lacks flashiness and feels drained of color doesn't make it 'dark' and 'mature,' it just makes it bland. Not enough Joker, too much Two-Face. I didn't think Ledgers performance was as spectacular as everyone else does. I did enjoy what little time he was on the screen, though. Should've been more of the Joker. And way too much Two-Face. Great actor to portray him, but god damn did they beat the Harvey Dent into the ground. So much so that hearing that name again, having to type it, kinda pisses me off. Cheap, sophomoric film-making tricks: The 'cut away before something happens' trick, for example. Like when the Joker is telling yet another rendition about his scars, leading up to him giving someone else the very same scars he bears on his face, but...nope. Cuts away. Or when the Joker tells the two dudes to fight to the death to get on his team. Once again, it cuts away. Why couldn't we have seen at least a LITTLE of that fight? Perhaps it would be too much effort on Nolans part to show action for more than 2 minutes without 45 more minutes of characters ranting "Anarchy 101." Shaking camera during fight scenes, as well as the camera being zoomed incredibly far in. Very dim lighting during fights as well. So the camera is shaking and zoomed in incredibly close, not to mention that in every fight, the power seems to be out. This seems like another lazy way out of choreographing fights that are actually captivating. There is also plot holes, obvious twists, terrible logic from all characters, and Batman completely SUCKS in a movie about Batman. Bale portrays a somewhat believable Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is terrible. I could go on, but I feel like my point is at least half made, and its getting quite lengthy.

[Doc]

How about its 94% at Rotten Tomatoes? That ties it with the original Star Wars. Seriously? As good as STAR WARS? Haha, not that I hate New Hope, but this film is the reason why I don't get why the prequels get much hate that they do. New Hope was revolutionary for it's time, but other then effects it really falls in alot of departments. The acting for the exception, of Ford and Guiness is pretty laughable. Alot of heavy ham handed dialouge, and plotholes. Luckily for the most part most of this was fixed in 'Empire', and 'Jedi'. Despite, the critisism of 'Jedi' being the weakest I always found it a better made film then the original. 'Empire' is without a doubt the best of the bunch. Best directing, acting( I do feel Hamill best performance was in 'Jedi'), great effects, and plot of the original trilogy. The only big complaint of the prequels too me is that almost everything is damn cgi, and the rather bad performances that don't seem to improve in the entire trilogy. The Dark Knight also hit the #1 spot on IMDB for quite a while, upstaging long victor "The Godfather." In a city of film-making, the Dark Knight doesn't deserve to be in the same building as the Godfather, nevermind the same room. Currently, it rests at #8. The 8th greatest movie of all-time? C'mon, it was all right at best. Eh....why your actually take the IMDB top movies list seriously? Don't! That list is nothing, but a popularity list. Trust me just ignore it.

[JonOfTheShred]

Haha, not that I hate New Hope, but this film is the reason why I don't get why the prequels get much hate that they do. New Hope was revolutionary for it's time, but other then effects it really falls in alot of departments. The acting for the exception, of Ford and Guiness is pretty laughable. Alot of heavy ham handed dialouge, and plotholes. Luckily for the most part most of this was fixed in 'Empire', and 'Jedi'. Despite, the critisism of 'Jedi' being the weakest I always found it a better made film then the original. 'Empire' is without a doubt the best of the bunch. Best directing, acting( I do feel Hamill best performance was in 'Jedi'), great effects, and plot of the original trilogy. I agree, Empire destroys any other Star Wars movie. General consensus is correct on this one, great movie. But despite its shortcomings, A New Hope is fun and rewatchable. It was extremely creative film-making and revolutionary in this regard. It oozed personality; the designs, the models, the set, the story itself. Its a huge reason the prequels all sucked. (How can anyone be expected to act an entire trilogy in front of a blue screen and be expected to perform well?) But I reiterate, A New Hope is still a very fun movie and rewatchable to this day. The Dark Knight is boring and I never want to sit through it again, and everything form the set piece to the story was, in this guys opinion, extremely unoriginal and reaching. In fact, the only thing really fun to look at on screen (aside from Rachel, who's dece looking) was the Jokers crazy outfits, the one thing that I really noticed showing any creativity. The only big complaint of the prequels too me is that almost everything is damn cgi, and the rather bad performances that don't seem to improve in the entire trilogy. That's because it felt like they were just going through the motions. No one was having fun. They were TRYING to make Star Wars, instead of taking solace in the fact that their job gets to be...making STAR WARS. I saw a picture with George Lucas filming a film from the OT; he stood in front of a huge array of models; x-wings, the falcon, the death star trenches, landscapes. It looked fucking bad ass. Then a comparison shot of him on set for on the PT movies...he's standing in front of a vast, green emptiness. Actually, let me find that picture... I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan, but I can see him and his team on the left of this picture and Nolan, Bale and their crew on the right of this picture. If that makes any sense. I feel like he was having fun and being creative with his Batman movies, whereas Nolan and crew were simply trying to make a 'more mature Batman' and completely missed the point of the comics in the execution of the film. And I know the comics are dark, but they're still interesting. Eh....why your actually take the IMDB top movies list seriously? Don't! That list is nothing, but a popularity list. Trust me just ignore it. Nah, just trying to support my opinion its a candidate for perhaps the most overrated movie of all-time; when I rant I speak in hyperbole for comedic effect, I ain't really angry, I just put myself in the shoes of Larry David when I criticize something. I can rant in such a fashion for a long time

[bassman]

Although I like the film, I'll go along with most of what is being said here. The IMDB rating was and still is insane. But as Doc mentioned - it's IMDB. Ben Hur, which I find to be the greatest epic of all time, sits at 159 while the likes of Pulp Fiction sit in the top 5? Wow. I would also have to agree with Doc about the Star Wars thing. The first film is pretty damn weak. Empire is what made the trilogy for me. I would also watch Jedi before SW. Star Wars could be just as overrated as TDK. I personally love TDK as a life long batman fan. It's the best batman film to date. And thank god they finally made Batman a vigilante hunted by the cops. It only took them six films to get around to it. And no, Tim Burton's Tim Burton film with Batman as a supporting character doesn't count. Anyway....TDK has it's flaws like any other film but it's damn good entertainment and a damn great batman film, imo.

[LouCipherr]

OMG. Truest. Picture. Ever.

[AcesandEights]

I can't think of any other film close to as overrated as this one. How about more so? Gladiator? The original True Grit? I could probably think of a ton more that are more overrated than TDK. Not that the film isn't overrated at all, mind you. I agree it's IP, the success of its immediate predecessor, the talent pool involved and Ledger's death all helped add to a sense of hype, but I still think the film delivers close enough on promised target to not be considered some grand case of being overrated.

[bassman]

True Grit?!?! You son of a bitch! Nah...I could understand why that one wouldn't be enjoyed by some. Dying to see the remake. Probably wont get a chance to until dvd, though... Hows this for an overrated one around these parts...Dawn of the Dead. Oh yeah.

[Trin]

Yes, Dawn of the Dead '04 was highly overrated. Star Wars had more of an impact than you guys are giving it credit for. The way it grappled with religious topics was more important than the fact that it had unique special effects. And Dawn of the Dead had more of an impact too. It's easy to watch it today and declare it poorly acted and cheesy. But live through the 70's and early 80's and you'd know that Dawn was the crowning achievement of horror for a decade. This is pretty typical. The significance of movies is lost over time and they become judged solely on what can be seen by viewing them.

[bassman]

Puh-lease. I'll look for underlying meaning in films as much as the next guy, but if you think the religious similarities are what made Star Wars an international phenomenon you're really stretching. Besides, I wasn't talking about what the films could represent underneath the surface. You can find special meaning under the surface of any film really. I just believe that the original SW and original Dawn are pretty mediocre and overrated for what they are. Regardless of the time they were created. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy them. Just that sometimes they're given more credit than they deserve. Same as the topic of this thread, TDK. Time shouldn't have an effect on a film at all, really. Sure the effects, clothing, etc will look dated but that doesn't change the overall value of the film. Some of my favorite films are quite old but they're just as entertaining today as they were the day they were made. That's not to say they don't have their problems. Dawn has horrible acting, slow pacing, jarring editing, poor makeup, and a few other things but that's not the time it was made, just HOW it was made. And that's also not to say it's awful, just that it's given a bit more credit than it deserves sometimes. It's just the name of the game when you get into genre or classic pictures, I suppose.

[AcesandEights]

This is pretty typical. The significance of movies is lost over time and they become judged solely on what can be seen by viewing them. Completely agree. While a lot of people seem willing to be very realistic about Dawn of the Dead as it compares to not only current zombies movies in particular, but modern cinema in general--and while I agree with a lot of what those people say--a lot of these same people seem to write off the impact of the film upon it's viewers at release and, perhaps more importantly, its overall effect on the genre.

[bassman]

The impact a film had on it's genre, while good to acknowledge, should not be taken into account while juding the film itself, imo. The film should be judged on it's own merits rather than the genre it helped or hurt. That's the way I view Dawn. I respect the hell out of it for what it did for the genre. Not only do I respect it, but I love the film. I watch it often. That, however, is not going to cloud my judgement and make me believe the film has no flaws. Despite what some people seem to think, it IS okay to have negative things to say about films you love. You don't have to blindly say it's perfect. And Dawn's flaws, while some of them are no doubt due to the time period it was created, are extremely evident regardless of the period.