Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 13:57 GMT
I fail to see what all the hype was about with the Dark Knight. Yes it was a fun action film but wasn't anything special. Heath ledger's joker didn't seem to be the Joker to me as he lacked that quirky sadistic sense of humour that Jack Nicholson portrayed so well.
Honestly I don't think people would have been raving about it if it hadn't been Ledger's last film. All that putting on a deliberate soft talking voice to try to add atmosphere in the film came off as cheesy to me, especially with Bale as Batman trying to sound like Michael Keaton when in the suit and sounding totally different out of it.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 14:49 GMT
Finally saw this film over Christmas.
Talk about an over-hyped !
Just because a cast member dies does that make his performance "great" and the film "good? Don't think so.
It was rubbish.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 15:20 GMT
Oh really, you big revisionist philistine*. People are capable of objectivity, you know, and there's every chance Ledger's performance would have been lauded even if he'd lived. He was respected as an actor before he snuffed it. The film was likely to have been well-received too. People can also filter out 'hype' when making critical judgement, and besides it was hugely anticipated on the basis of the quality of Batman Begins.
I don't think it's the greatest film ever made and nor do I especially want to do rude things to Christian Bale, before you start - it just irks me to death when people fail to grasp the fundamentals of having an opinion but then have a really big shouty pompous one anyway and then I have to read it in order to moderate it and get all irritated and misanthropic when I could be eating a doughnut and thinking happy thoughts instead.
Hmph.
Point is, if you're going to suggest it's rubbish, that's fine, but you need way more justification than that if you don't want to incur my wrath, sonny jim.
*Yes I know they weren't really 'philistines' but let's not go there.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 15:59 GMT
when I went to see the film I expected just a basic holwood block buster action movie but it was soo much more it was incitefull and moveing and scary made you think about issues and how would you act in thouse situations
and I have no idar who the actors are and I do not realy care they where good actors
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 15:59 GMT
Although Bale seems to have vacuous playboy Bruce Wayne down to a tee, his portrayal of the Batman persona is laughable. (And not in the good way.)
Ledger's Joker fell well short of what I'd been expecting with all the rave reviews it recieved.
Not madcap, not scary, just lame. Mind you, he didn't seem to have much in the way of good dialogue to work with, so he doesn't get all the blame.
Michael Cane, the cheeky cockney Alfred? Well I'm sure his paycheck put in a good performance when he banked it.
Less "Dark Knight", more "Slightly Muggy Afternoon".
Is that better?
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 15:59 GMT
I disagree with the above negative posts.
Thought this was a beautifully shot and well delivered bit of cinema, the kind of movies the Batman franchise should have been from the start, forget Keaton, Clooney, Killmer...... Bale is great in this role and the fantastic supporting cast are sublime.
Dark, moody cinema is where its at, and to be quite frank, Ledger's take on the Joker blasts Nicholson's out of the water as an over-acted, cheese fest ( like all the old Batman villans, Arnie's Mr.Freeze anyone ?? Jim Carey's - The Riddler ?? DeVito's Penguin ?? ) Gimmi a break.
We should laud cinema like this and demand more of the same quality, it is exactly what high budget 'block-busters' should be - in comparison the the majority of the dross that emminates out of Hollywood on a regular basis.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 16:06 GMT
Much better. Still wrong, but better. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
That is an inexcusable title subversion, though, and when I'm not babysitting you lot I pretty much title-subvert for a living.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 16:08 GMT
It's easy to pfffft at Nicholson now but his performance was completely appropriate in the context. It was a comic-book film and he was an excellent comic-book villain.
Dark Knight is a crime thriller - which I somewhat regret, actually, I found it a bit too gritty and naturalistic. It risked making the main dude look a bit daft in his costume. But yeah. It's still a fucking Good movie however you look at it.
Posted Wednesday 7th January 2009 11:09 GMT
so you liked the film?
or do you just like moding (is that the correct word?) this thred?
or just like criticising pepol?
Posted Wednesday 7th January 2009 11:09 GMT
"the US version of The Office - possible proof that Stateside rehashes of successful Brit series don't always end in televisual crash-and-burn."
Could this have anything to do with the fact that the BRITONS' version of The Office was dismally unfunny to start with? Ricky Gervais is so far up his own arse these days that his digestive tract resembles a Klein Bottle.
Posted Wednesday 7th January 2009 11:09 GMT
I was bored the whole way through. it didn't work as a film of a comic-book, and as a thriller/action movie it was crap.
They should have chosen one or the other.
Dave
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:43 GMT
Well Sarah, well I see we can disagree here but with news that said film is up for an award people can always voice their opinions if the film does not deserve it.
Regardless there is a big thing in film that if you die young at the peak of your fame that your last film will be lavished with praise and hype. It was true for Brandon Lee and The Crow, its true again for Heath and Dark Knight.
Ledger was a good actor in many of his roles (sadly not the joker) but people should appreciate him for what he was not elevate his last film to godlike status and grant an Oscar as a means to mourn him.
With the media being full of praise and hype for the film it is hard to find balanced opinions these days.
Posted Friday 9th January 2009 15:47 GMT
Yes, I know, it just doesn't do much for your opinion's worth as far as I'm concerned if you're so blatant about how anti-hype you are. It's just the sound of one knee jerking, to me.
I do think a lot of the Ledger stuff is reactionary, anyway - you really think he was bad in that role, or are you just crippled by the desire not to be seen to be hype-suckered? And regardless of whether it's 'a big thing' (there's no way I could put it better... oh wait, actually there probably is), and however objectivity suffers in the face of untimely film star death, Brandon Lee did a great job in The Crow. No one's suggesting it was Oscar-worthy, it was just fitting.
Back to the article
