Really bad movie disguised (and not very well!) as a good one!

Rating: 1/10 (15 December 2008)

THE DARK KNIGHT is ALL hype and no substance! I've seen it 3 times and it is just plain awful. Basically, it is too long and convoluted as all get out. It felt 4 hours long to me the first time I saw it...no kidding! I guess the confusing part is worse than the long part. If a film flows smoothly for its run, length ought not be an issue, but TDK is utterly messy and confusing for it's running time. So Nolan wants a REALISTIC version of BATMAN? Then explain SOME things to us! The big one is HOW DOES JOKER SET ALL THIS STUFF UP?
At least BATMAN BEGINS was grounded in realism, explained motivations, techniques, and plans, and had a aura of realism. After BB was over, I remember thinking I LIKED THIS MOVIE! Although I'm a Burton Batman fan, I admit that Nolan did a very good job with BB; it feasibly defined a realistic Batman world while still embodying a sense of fun and had a lot of entertainment value. And the plot made sense! But after TDK was over, my impression was WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT? Some points about why TDK is a weak film to me:
*Harvey Dent swallows all that gasoline and isn't even sick enough to hurl! He is badly burned, but his rage and need for vengeance dulls his pain and he easily walks around and does not scare the Bejesus out of anyone? NO ONE is shocked by the way he looks! Seriously, Nolan?
*Gordon and Batman decide that Dent/TwoFace will be a hero and no one will know that he killed 5 people. EXCEPT for them, Gordon's family, and that bad cop Ramirez! I'm sure they will ALL keep it a secret...Plothole!
*Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes not attractive! Katie Holmes from BB wasn't jaw-droppingly gorgeous, but she WAS fairly easy on the eyes! And Holmes worked much better in this role in BB, had a LOT more chemistry with Bale, and had an important function to the story. When Joker says that she (Gyllenhall's Rachel) is a beautiful woman, I was like, NO SHE'S NOT! Gyllenhaal is perhaps a better actress than Holmes, but Holmes was actually much more right for the role of Rachel Dawes. Gyllenhaal literally has nothing to do and just doesn't cut it in TDK.
*Lucius Fox (played by Morgan Freeman, who just exists in this film, nothing else) has the ability to do ANYTHING technological? This includes constructing a sonar device that can scan all 30 million cell phones in Gotham City simultaneously. Or did Bruce Wayne in his very limited technological training and experience do it? Either way...OK. Yeah. Right. Whatever. In BB, the stuff Fox was selling Wayne at least seemed plausible. In TDK, it comes off as just plain absurd technobabble!
*Batman and Joker get the crap beat out of them repeatedly, chewed up by dogs, fall from multiple story buildings and don't even get hurt. When Batman saved Rachel, they fell from the penthouse of a CHICAGO high-rise for cripe's sake. That must have been 100 stories easy! No bones broken, no trauma, just ho-hum, back to business.
*That climactic ferry boat scene is pure de Hollywood manipulation! It is there solely to reel the viewer in to make it seem like TDK is some kind of original, provocative piece. Instead, it comes across as sappy, maudlin, and empty. The ending to that scene is soooooo predictable!
*In general, though, TDK is choppily edited, is populated with one-dimensional, lifeless characters, is humorless, convoluted as heck, has dull dialogue, and is VERY cliché. I mean, it's barely even a DECENT movie!
Christian Bale was great in BB, but in TDK, Nolan's hack direction and the script really let him down, making him look like a laughingstock as a hero. He was barely even in TDK and when he was in it, you didn't get any feel for the character so well-established in BB. What makes Bruce Wayne/Batman tick? What does he really want? Just based on one dinner where Dent spouts about being a crusader, Wayne thinks that he's THE ONE, the savior of Gotham City? Not very deep character development.
In addition to Freeman, you have Michael Caine as Wayne's butler/accomplice Alfred, Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon, and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent, all giving rather lifeless performances. Ironically, I think Eckhart has the biggest male role in the film, but unfortunately Dent is not very accessible and rather empty to the viewer. Really, Bale shares lead honors with Oldman, Eckhart, and Ledger; actually, Oldman and Eckhart may have bigger roles in this than Bale and Ledger! Who wants a Batman flick where neither Batman (the main hero) nor the Joker (the main villain) have the biggest role? These skilled actors are unfortunately operating from a vapid script and extremely short-sighted character development.
Tim Burton's surrealistic, neo-noir, skewed, artsy, comic book BATMAN flicks (BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS) are truly the best Batman movies. We accept at face value those films because Burton's unique vision not only strived for something different for a superhero movie, but also succeeded in a way that Nolan's films just cannot. Batman the bad guy who is hated by the entire city of Gotham?!. No way, not in superhero world, not acceptable! And I don't care what these nouveau moviegoers so enthralled with this film think!