10 reasons why 'Batman: The Dark Knight' is the most overrated movie of 2008!
Batman: The Dark Knight is simply one of the best movies of 2008. However all the (necro) hype surrounding the movie with the pre-release has started all over again. Now with the Oscar nomination ads and an Imax re-release.
Although also on my best of 2008 list, I think the movie is hugely overrated. And this new round of hype reminded me of 10 reasons why:
1.Necro-hype
Let’s just face it: after the death of Ledger the hype has taken some extreme proportions. Although the studio did not start it, they did not try to stop it either.
2.Viral marketing
The tragic death of Heath didn´t stop the tsunami of virals for promoting the movie and teasing the fans. Possibly one of most heavly promoted movies of all time.
3.Fanboys
Every solid IP needs a loyal fan base to build on and to spread the word and adore the franchise. The Batman ´fanboys´ may have out ´hallelujah-ed´ the Lord of the Ring, Star Wars and Harry Potter fanboys.
4.Low voice of Batman
With every sequel Christian Bale´s voice is getting lower once he pulls on the dark suite. He´s not getting scarier. Just less serious.
5.Action movie, not a superhero movie anymore
Maybe it´s a good thing actually, but after the reboot Batman is no more a classic comic movie. It´s just a harsh and dark good-guy vs bad-gut action movie.
The violence gets realistic and the villains are real world criminals.
6.Joker was good, not great
Heath Ledger as Joker was really good and up to par with Jack Nicholson´s version. But Oscar worthy? The best supporting actor? Wonder whether people would have thought the same if the movie wasn´t hyped this much or if Ledger was still alive.
7.Overcasting
The cast of the movie is just grand. But most of these big names have a small role. Morgan Freeman? Micheal Cain? Gary Oldman? A waste of talent, considering their roles.
8.Close-up & chaotic actions
The same trick used in Batman Begins to reveal that Liam Neeson can´t fight is used here constantly: the action is filmed almost at a close-up range, which makes the action hard to follow.
9.Too dark to see
Ok. The movie uses dark colours the underline the dark tone of the movie. But most of the time the settings and scenes outside are too dark to distinguish stuff. And this combined with the close-up action shots was just too chaotic and too dark.
10.When two ferries ‘collide’
Like the bridge and metro scene in the Spider-Man movies the final scene were passengers of two ferries are about to blow the other ferry is just…too…unrealistic at least. Even for a comic book. But especially for a such dark and serious movie version.
Hey, I still loved the movie. But I fear the hype for the 3th instalment will be even bigger. And the bigger the hype, the bigger the expectation and the bigger the disappointment. So, maybe I just have to try to avoid all the coming hype than.
Carl, 
Sam, 
batman 7:07 pm on December 5, 2008 Permalink |
Ferries about to collide? Fail.
Tschai 7:33 pm on December 5, 2008 Permalink |
Rephrased the last reason, thanks for pointing that out ‘batman’…
–edit–
typo’s and grammars fixed…
dude 10:21 pm on December 5, 2008 Permalink |
4,5,8, & 9.
Those are the reasons that say that you are dumb.
hg 11:09 pm on December 5, 2008 Permalink |
Some good, valid points.
g 12:02 am on December 6, 2008 Permalink |
Look man, comic book movies are a bit of fun, a laugh. Kidn of liek iron man
i fucking loved iron man, but i know what it was. I will tell people yeah iron man is awesome check that out! same way id say tropic thunder was awesome
the dark knight has such a fuckign good story. trust me, watch it again, i watched it 3 times and every single time you understand the layers to each character so much better and see why they are such forces to be reckoned with.
I saw this overseas where english isnt the first language (subtitles were available for the non english customers) and there was pindrop silence and awe when the joker was on screen (its usually a little rowdy in the cinema, kids phones ppl chatting etc). It wasnt the necro hype cuz i didnt give a fuck, and im sure those people didnt know either. His performance was just that good. the only character i’ve seen with that much mind blowing twistedness/wickedness was Amon Goeth in the schindlers list. but even he ahd a soft side.
the acting is really that good, the story is that good. your points are split between fans of the film and the film itself.
also your last comment “But I fear the hype for the 3rd instalment will be even bigger. And the bigger the hype, the bigger the expectation and the bigger the disappointment. So, maybe I just have to try to avoid all the coming hype than.”
If you are aware of how you handle hype, and you are prone to getting overexcited and thus getting yourself disappointed <- if you are aware of this then you should be much more rational when approaching fanboys and hype pushing people. You know what it is, cut their bullshit out and give an honest opinion of the film. if it was fuckign amazing leave it at that.
Matthew Nash 4:06 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink |
The film is a cut above most action films. Indeed, I would contend that it’s not an action movie per se, it’s just a great film which happens to have some action bits in, just as Macbeth has fights and witches and gore and hallucinations.
It’s actuallly an incredibly good character-drama-crime film on a grand scale. I think it was too hyped, as it really didn’t need to be. If it had come along a bit more quietly, it would not be so generally slated as being overhyped and just good cos of Ledger – the script has a huge part to play too. If Ledger had just gone round going ‘This town needs an enema!’ he would have been shit no matter how he played him.
john 2:08 pm on December 6, 2008 Permalink |
You missed out Warner’s butchered blu-ray release.
So much edge enhancement.
Ejay 3:43 am on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
I agree with a lot of these points, some more some less. For me it’s mainly the overhyping and the fact that’s it’s listed in the top 10 movies of all time at IMDB that disappointed me afterwards seeing this movie. For example while the joker was very nicely played i expected more, mainly because of all the hype.
2 of my own disappointments in this movie were some of the very unrealistic moments that just don’t cut it if you’re making a batman movie. The other is the predictability of so many of the important key moments. Nice to have dramatic music pumping through your speakers if you can already gues how it ends.
While many will disagree, i might even think batman begins was better than this.
franki182 10:09 pm on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
what i can’t stand are these die-hard dark knight fans who have to following arguments:
“everyone i know loved it!”
“ive seen it 3 times, trust me!”
“heath ledger was amazing!”
.
the movie is just simply overrated in every aspect. the acting is nothing special (besides heath ledger who WAS good, but not oscar worthy. give me a break). the action IS filmed too close and it doesn’t take a movie expert to know that fight scenes are filmed close when the fight choreography is nothing special and/or the actors just cant fight.
the story is nothing special, come on…. how many times have we seen this story.
but the number one thing that bother me the most is the following:
THIS WAS NOT BATMAN!!!!!!
i can’t tell you how many times i’ve heard something along the lines of this: “you just can’t deal with the fact that the new batman is just so much cooler. the old batman was a loser and villains were pathetic. this was an awesome action movie that modernized a once respected superhero who today, is nothing more than a rich man in tights.”
some things don’t have to change, and when i say i’m going to watch batman, and i arrive and see christian bale growling like an idiot, im sorry but it’s not what batman is.
NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE MODERNIZED.
Harlequin 11:19 pm on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
The film is, I must agree, somewhat overrated. Probably one of the most heavily promoted movies is a grand understatement.
HOWEVER…
What I hate is when I say that I loved TDK, about 20 people have to either roll their eyes at me or tell me why it was so overrated and not deserving of love or recognition. I’ve been a Batfan since I was 5 years old, and now everyone seems to despise my fanbase because of this movie.
First of all, ITS A MOVIE. I don’t understand why some people have to get so defensive of their side of the argument. Movies are meant to be enjoyed, and are nothing deeper than entertainment. If you don’t like it, fine, just don’t ruin my day badmouthing it for no good reason.
Secondly, I am sick and tired of crazed fans who never liked batman in their lives before suddenly saying that he ‘is teh shiz’. Seriously. Get your own bandwagon. This one is full.
Third, stop saying that this is not batman! Has anyone else here read elseword stories/comics? Batman as a character is not set in stone. He is… shall we say open to interpretation. Same with the Joker. There is no definitive Joker story or interpretation. Read The Killing Joke, Then read Arkham Asylum. Both have been praised for their take on the Joker, as well as Batman, and look at their differences. Just because This movie was different, and it didn’t jump straight out of the comics, doesn’t mean it was therefore unfaithful.
Finally, just because Heath is dead, doesn’t mean that all of a sudden HE is overrated. Yes, his death did influence some of the hype of the movie, but why does that have to be a bad thing? He did a great job of bringing the Joker to life, why should he have to suffer assholes saying he was a drug addict?
*phew*
On a lighter side, I can’t wait for TDK to come out on DVD.
Tschai 11:24 pm on December 7, 2008 Permalink |
Thanks for the great comment, guys. No matter your views, good the read some reasonable arguments.
Aaaronee 5:24 am on December 10, 2008 Permalink |
It was one of the least imaginative batman’s just look at the environment around them it didn’t feel like Gotham anymore. I laughed every time batman spoke, and heath was overacting I don’t care what people say, Jack Nicholson was both funny, and scary, heath was just retarded, he sounded like a weakly nerdy guy and had none of the characteristics or props that joker used. he was a crazy guy who looked like joker a rained on joker.
Having Morgan freeman, Oldman, and Caine was the worst casting decisions talk about a price you could cut by hiring actors who could play the part and not be such a big name, it was a waste of acting and money.
I like some of the themes and mood of these batman’s but everything else was just an awful action-drama, The fighting is badly filmed, what happen to a still camera filming the whole scene and watching a fight from an outside view then coming in for some close-ups? now it’s all close-up shaky and fast.
This movie was definitely overrated I could tell before I even watched it.
Leftthetheater 7:49 pm on December 11, 2008 Permalink |
I was disappointed in this movie as well. I liked Batman Begins but waited a week to see DK. I avoided the plot summaries but couldn’t avoid all the praise that was coming out about the movie and I guess they led me to expect too much.
I was really underwhelmed by the movie. In fact, I left after 2 face was created and the Joker blew up the hospital.
I had the same reaction to Tropic Thunder.
The lesson for me is lower my expectations as much as possible when seeing a hyped up movie.
But I will go see the next Batman.
Lange 4:17 am on December 15, 2008 Permalink |
Although I agree that comic book heroes are free to interpretation, I prefer the classic Batman. As far as the films go, I preferred Batman Begins to TDK. I liked that in the first film Nolan made Gotham City look like a fictional city (although it was filmed in Chicago). I liked the look of the building for Wayne Enterprises and the Narrows. It was reminiscent of Tim Burton’s take on Batman. In The Dark Knight, it’s very obvious that the city in the film is CHICAGO. What happened to Gotham City? Couldn’t Nolan have given the film a real-world edge without sacrificing the look of Gotham? I don’t mind that Nolan wanted to bring the comic book characters down to earth, which I believe Nolan did in the first film. The writers made Bruce Wayne a real, conflicted man but Bruce Wayne/Batman could have still been a real man in a surreal world. I feel he completely sacrificed the mythic feel of Batman’s world. After all, it IS a comic book movie.
I love a good action movie, but the only real action sequence I felt was the car chase. I think Ledger’s interpretation was of the Joker was, without a doubt, the most credible performance of the Joker I have seen but that wasn’t enough for me. The story seemed to meander and in a lot of ways it reminded me of the plot in the movie SPEED with Keanu Reeves. The cops are bumbling around trying to figure out the next move of the homicidal maniac who keeps outsmarting them. You could have easily transferred Reeves, Sandra Bullock and Jeff Daniels into this film and you’d have SPEED in GOTHAM CITY. Oh yeah that’s right I forgot, CHICAGO! There’s nothing new here. I honestly think that Batman Returns was a far darker film than this one, and yet BR kept the mythic look and feel of Batman’s world.
I actually prefer Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman to all the other actors who have portrayed the character. He brought a certain kind of vulnerability to the character that I feel was lacking in other performances. Although Michael Caine is not used much in BB or TDK, his Alfred is better written. You get more of the sense that he took on the responsibility of raising Bruce after the murder of his parents. You get the sense that, although he cares about Bruce, he is not afraid to tell him exactly what he thinks. I think Batman: The Animated Series is probably the best all around interpretation of this characther and his world.
Lange 4:36 am on December 15, 2008 Permalink |
Another thing was how the Harvey Dent/Two-Faced character was handled. Although I felt Aaron Eckhart gave a good performance, I thought that the animated series portrayal of Dent was far more complex. The animated series went the route of Dent having a split personality and struggling with sudden outbursts of rage that he didn’t quite understand and was in denial about it . To me, if TDK had gone this route, Dent’s transformation into Two-Faced would have been more believable. If Nolan had shown Dent already struggling with suppressed emotions that developed from an abusive background, I could see how Rachel’s death would have pushed him over the edge because he was already unstable. Well, that’s my opinion.
Sheeyah 9:15 am on December 15, 2008 Permalink |
Let me preface with the fact that I think “The Dark Knight” was a great movie. I don’t want to take anything away from Ledger’s performance either, no matter whether you consider it Oscar worthy or not.
I don’t want to be too nitpicky about the LITTLE details. (For example, Batman has never been portrayed in film wearing a bodysuit…it’s always some kind of body armor. But considering it isn’t actually a comic book or even animated, I understand why it makes more sense for him to be wearing body armor.) I’m more concerned with the BIG details. And yes, I have the same problem with any movie that strays too far from the source. As long as it can be legitimately justified, I don’t have a problem with slight variations.
OK, now, let me get to my first point. The Joker in “TDK” is not the same Joker I’m used to. I prefer Jack Nicholson’s Joker for this reason, though ultimately I prefer the Joker from the animated series. My Joker didn’t cut scars into his face or put on white make-up, he fell into a vat of chemicals. Ironically, I also find TDK’s Joker too serious. My Joker laughs constantly, and is much more “fun,” while still staying a murderer.
Second, I think the only reason the Joker was used is because he is the most recognizable Batman villian and closest to the envisioned character. After reading some information, the serial killer Holiday would’ve been a better fit – especially given Nolan’s desire to make this Batman more practical and realistic. His story is actually connected to Harvey Dent’s Two-Face transformation and many people know nothing about his character, making a reimagining of his origin refreshing.
Third, I don’t like Two-Face’s fate. Moreover, I don’t like the ending to the movie; it keeps me from saying the movie was “amazing.” To be honest, if Two-Face hadn’t died I really wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Fourth, “Batman Begins.” What does this have to do with TDK? A lot, actually. This was a decent movie, and better than Batman Forever and certainly Batman & Robin (of course just about anything is better than Batman & Robin). Previous posts mentioned Batman: Year One, and one might wonder why Nolan and company wouldn’t have preferred a story closer to this one for realism. It takes elements from Miller’s work, but it sets the tone for moving too far from the Batman series’ origin stories.
Those are the major gripes I have. I won’t say that “this isn’t Batman” because it is on a basic level. That comment would apply much better to the first movie. It’d be more accurate to say, “that’s not the Joker.” The movie shouldn’t, IMO, win any major Oscars. It’s box-office-record-breaking run is marred by the fact of why people went to see it in the first place. (But then again, “Titanic” has its record marred by the fact that it stayed in the theatre for such a long time, “Star Wars” was re-released, and so on…so that’s another topic for somewhere else). If Ledger wins an Oscar, it’ll always be marred by the question of whether he would’ve won if he hadn’t died…or if he doesn’t, by the question of if he was purposefully denied the Oscar for that reason. (On a side note, Ledger should NOT be nominated for best supporting actor as rumored he will be. He should be up for lead actor if anything. Whether or not he wins that depends on the other nominees. Regardless, his performance should be judged independently of what anyone thinks about how the Joker should’ve been portrayed.)
One other question I have is why do we have so many “reboots?” Even the comics are guilty of this. Crisis on Infinite Earths rebooted things. Fine, it probably DID need it at that point. But no more, please. In this movie’s case, Batman doesn’t need to begin in the 21st Century, he needs to Begin in the late-80’s. He was 25 when he came back to Gotham from his training, so he’d be about 46 today. Can we just leave him there and let him age now? The next generation can move on to younger superheroes but can always go back and read older comics. This goes to other characters, too, though. Let’s let some fresh faces have the Spotlight – poor Nightwing.
Angel 4:39 pm on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
I prefer Jack Nicholson, this movie it´s just another batman movie…
abraXXious 2:59 am on October 10, 2009 Permalink |
Jacks performance was much better than Ledgers in my opinion too.
10 reasons why 'Top List' posts are great to read and write « Aytemir.com 11:48 am on March 5, 2009 Permalink |
[...] UPDATE: 10 reasons why ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ is the most overrated movie of 2008! [...]
Eli Dirkx 11:58 pm on June 21, 2009 Permalink |
My reasons for not liking the movie as much as I should have:
1.The Two-Face revealing scene already looked rediculous to me at first glance. And somehow I was the only one somewhat mocking this cheap zombie-face in the movie theatre. What happened?
2.Christian Bale randomly went James Bond in a few scenes. If you watched it, you’ll know which scenes they could be.
3.The Joker is organised way too well to be ‘realistic’. He somehow manages to rig entire hospitals and ferries without doing a shit, he somehow forced a bomb into somebody’s tummy if that wasn’t one of his henchies, he somehow manages to get on the top of a tower without doing as much as an effort, and really…do his lips organise that all for him? Noticed him smacking them so much. Maybe that’s his lips working.
4.No details about what happened after Batman and Rachel escaped from the fundraiser? Nothing, absolutely nothing? I mean, a hint could have helped grasp at the situation thereafter. Now it just seems like a plothole.
5.Alfred somehow always manages to prepare a whole speech on short notice. I guess it can be funny, but I’m not sure if this is really a necessary thing.
6.Gordon’s faked death…was this even necessary? I noticed barely any part that ever mentioned him being a danger to Curly Hair, let alone Zombie Face.
7.’Why So Serious?’ Yeah, why? You really need to get that frown off your face for a few minutes. Trust me, you’ll feel better. Seriously, there could have been alot more humour in this. The constant seriousness can be tiring. Even The Godfather Part II had some painfully hilarious parts and still managed to keep up the dead-serious tone.
8.The Two-Face contained in this film is medically impossible, yet somehow manages to get right out of his bed without troubles, drinks alcohol, his eyeball manages to still work, and instead of dying from an infection, he necessarily has to die from being thrown down by Batman because he had this insane conviction that Gordon had to suffer for what happened to him and his girlfriend…what?
9.Who wrote this script? Cliché lines like ‘You die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain’ ‘This city has just shown to you that it believes in GOOOD’ and copied lines like ‘I’m a man of my worrrd’…*facepalm* I’d fire the writer and hire a new one, preferably one that doesn’t concentrate on unnecessarily long monologues and stupid ‘heroic’ quotes. Also, some more originality could work.
10.The fanboys. I don’t think this particular one needs much explanation.
pmg 5:52 am on July 13, 2009 Permalink |
Additional reasons:
1. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s annoying Rachel. Somehow Bruce and Harvey were both madly in love with her. Huh?
2. Excessive political correctness. I won’t elaborate; I think it’s obvious.
3. Impossibilities mentioned by others–e.g. (a) rigging an entire hospital with explosives without anybody noticing and (b) thinking coherently off pain-meds after just having half your face burned off.
4. Arbitrary Dent story arc, as mentioned by others. Dent’s girlfriend dies and he goes from completely good to completely evil. And that interrogation episode with the schizophrenic didn’t make the transition any more convincing.
Alpha 2:50 am on August 21, 2009 Permalink |
Wait, for every1 who said ledger didn’t deserve the oscar, who did that year? I watched the other performances, doubt was close, but honestly ledger really was better. All because a movie has hype doesn’t mean somebody has to try to bring it down. This is my opinion had much less plotholes than the original batman movie. Watch the scene where joker falls into the vat, y did the cops stop because of a liquid? And in all honesty, this is how a comic book movie should be. The comics are the way they are, imaginative and not as realistic because it works very well on their medium. Movies should attempt to be different like this. If they are the same in terms of attitude and realism, then there is no point of the movie, it is just a copy of the comic, not expanding on the universe.And get off the fucking voice, jesus christ, its a fuckin voice changer, he didn;t actually talk like that. how big fo a plot hole would it be that no1 could figure out that batman was wayne if u could CLEARLY hear his voice?
WSS 6:33 pm on September 24, 2009 Permalink |
Before The Dark Knight, I had never seen a Heath Ledger movie. I didn’t really like him. But, comparing his performance & Jack Nicholson’s is like comparing The Godfather to The Teletubbies. I’m not a fan of Batman, but the Dark Knight was amazing.
abraXXious 2:55 am on October 10, 2009 Permalink |
Sorry, don’t agree. Heaths performance was bland and average. Jack Nicholson, in my humble opinion, was far closer to the original comic book villain – less realistic, yes, but how realistic is a Batman movie supposed to be?
Heath was a little too “wimpy” as the joker. Also, nicholsons portrayal was more interesting as we had some back story to show WHERE his character originated, and Jack Napier was well played.
Nicholsons portrayal – 8/10
Ledgers – 6.5/10
Again, my humble opinion.
Sam 8:23 pm on January 24, 2010 Permalink |
How can you possibly say Jack Nicholson is closer to the comic book Joker? Heath became the Joker, Nicholson made the Joker Nicholson. Jack Nicholson played himself.
Have you read “The Killing Joke”? or “The Dark Knight Returns” or “Arkham Asylum”.
If, when you say, “original comic book villain” you are referring to the jokers earliest incarnations, then neither Ledger NOR Nicholson’s performance come close. If thats what you want watch the fifties TV show with Adam West as Batman.
As to wanting to know the Jokers origins ala Tim Burton’s Batman (which dont’ get me wrong is an awesome film) isn’t it better to have a little mystery? DO you really want to sit through another “origin” film like Batman Begins was? Don’t you just want to get into the film?
Or are you just a contrary person by nature who likes to bring shit down?
Martin 8:05 pm on December 6, 2009 Permalink |
Yea, this movie wasn’t even that good
it was just like all the other action movies out there
First time i watched it, i fell asleep.
Joey 10:07 pm on January 7, 2010 Permalink |
“First time”? Why the hell did you watch it a second time if it just made you sleepy?
1 reason why ‘Avatar’ is gonna be the most overrated movie of 2009! « Aytemir.com 11:35 am on December 24, 2009 Permalink |
[...] on this blog and commentators on Reddit gave me a harsh time on my post 10 reasons why ‘Batman: The Dark Knight’ is the most overrated movie of 2008! back in 2008. So with this post, which is just based on a teaser, I’m not gonna be that harsh [...]
Carl 2:31 pm on January 25, 2010 Permalink |
this is spot on… even the avatar post. good blog
Sheeyah 3:30 pm on August 21, 2009 Permalink |
It’s more of an issue that we’ll never really know if Ledger won because of his performance or because of his death. My problem with his performance is not its quality, but that his version of the Joker is not compatible with mine. Your problem with the vat in the first movie is minor since it is consistent with traditional Joker origins and that IT altered his appearance rather than self-mutilation. Your argument for this movie being imaginative rather than realistic doesn’t hold up well either. The movie TRIED to be realistic. If anything, it could’ve been more incredible. As far as “copying” the comic, well, yeah it should follow it pretty closely actually. The comics are the universe and movies are another way for them to reach more people, not the other way around. I didn’t like Batman Begins for that reason. As for the voice, it’s not a voice changer. That’s Christian Bale. No one is saying that he shouldn’t have changed his voice, just that it could’ve been better. Take the animated series, for example. Kevin Conroy does an outstanding job of having 2 distinct voices for Batman and Bruce Wayne. No one expects Bale to be that good, but as an actor he should be able to come up with something better.
abraXXious 2:57 am on October 10, 2009 Permalink |
Bingo!
Ledgers portrayal was competently acted, but not really in the spirit of the comic book.
Also I completely agree that Bales voice as Batman sounds ridiculous, difficult (at times) to understand and silly.