Who payed the critics

Rating: 1/10 (26 August 2008)

I am deeply shocked. I am really shocked that this film made it all the way to the top. It's OK with me that it is a huge success at the box office. I can cope with it that many, many people do not have the same taste as me. Even though it is a little sad because I think this somewhat strange taste of the comic buffs will influence the movies in the future even more. There are interesting articles about the influence of the bloggers and hardcore fans on producers and directors. What really shocks me here is that many, many acclaimed critics fail to see how bad this movie is. They write about hidden stories, meanings and messages. The war in Iraq, the war against terrorism, a reflection of American society and so on. They write about hilarious performances of the actors. They write about stunning visual effects. Some of them may even write about the tremendous script. Fortunately so far I did not read anything about the scriptwriting. So I try to begin with that issue. Well, the script is so down, down, deep down below that I don't even know where I shall begin. I guess the guys who are more in the comic stuff will tell you that Jonathan Nolan really did a good job in adopting the stories and the mood of the comic books. But for me this is no reason to write a story that lacks everything and is so brain dead that I'm gasping for air. The plot is annoying and predictable. The characters are written really poorly. First of all Harvey Dent. His turning into a fallen Angel is so incredibly incredible. It may result from the way that the brains of the comic buffs work. 9 Pictures or less per page. I that time you can turn from a white hero into a black devil. But this is a movie. And no 9c trash book. To say it clear  and you may have noticed  I am no comic fan. But I like for instance Sin City very much. It is a very good adaptation into a now medium. And it is visually very interesting. Visuals. As I said Sin City is visually very interesting. The dark Knight is not. Totally not. Almost two decades before we saw TerminatorII. Oh my god, this was something new. And Two Face  Aaron Eckhart looked a little like the wrecked Arni back then. Don't get me wrong the make up apartment did a very good job. It is just so sad that we already saw it all before. (Just like the inspection of the new weapons Is this a scene of one of the Bond Movies?) Or take the Matrix (Part1) about one decade before. Visually the dark knight is not one tick better or more interesting. Maybe on the same level. Sin City was something new. The dark Knight shows us common techniques in a slightly higher perfection. The directing is average. Not outstanding. It must have been a logistic masterpiece, OK. But we have seen it before. The acting. I can't even say if the actors are bad. I think it is the story that is so poor. The Joker is good. Heath Ledger is good. Not brilliant or something like that. It is solid work. And he is the only character that is somewhat interesting and not full of pathetic crap. Well to draw the conclusion again. I can live with it that this movie is that successful at the box office. I can not live with the super high praising comments of professional critics. For action entertainment this movie is too long. At least one hour is simply annoying. (Again the writing.) So, who ever has some bucks left go see this movie and see what brain damaged means.