Is The Dark Night overrated?

[Prowler]

We all remember how TDK took the world by storm when it came out, right? A lot of people even considered it the GOAT movie at the time. Everyone also drooled about Heath Leadger's performance in the movie.

As someone who only got the chance to watch TDK a few years ago, I have to say that the movie seems to have aged well. I mean, superhero movies are everywhere nowadays, so it's not like you're watching a movie from a genre that's way passé.

I thought it was a good movie, sure. A bit overhyped by a lot of people, but still good nonetheless. What I think is overrated about it is Heath Leadger as the Joker. Sure he's good and it was an interesting and darker take on the character that fit the movie's atmosphere better than Jack Nicholson's cartoony Joker would have fit. But, people acted like it was as Oscar worthy performance. I can't help but think that the hype comes from the fact Heath died slightly before the movie came out. His death was a huge shock to people at the time and added more hype to the movie.

I also think the movie comes across as pretentious at times. Lines like "some men just want to watch the world burn" became memes for a reason, and nearly laughed when I heard it in the movie.

I also would rather they had not included Two Face's origin near the end of it. The movie was long enough already and that made it 20 minutes longer. Felt shoehorned in.

In some ways, Batman Begins was better than The Dark Knight. Both are good movies, so whichever you prefer.

I don't think TDK is overrated when people call it a good movie or claim it to be the best of its genre. I do think that calling it the GOAT movie or a top 10 all-time great movie is a gross exaggeration, though. Like the movie all you want, but don't expect me to agree with such statements.

Thoughts?

[Vegita-San]

I liked Batman Begins better.

The Dark Knight was NOT a Joker movie. this was some random psycho who dressed up like a clown.
None of the Joker's usual MO was in this movie.

and if Ledger hadn't of died, the movie wouldn't be remembered so well at all.

[IMJ]

Nolan's Batman flicks are all great in that they have that "Christopher Nolan" sensibility about them - his pacing, his cuts, his cinematic scope. But I'd say they were all overrated.

Basically those movies get fan-worship mostly on talking points rather than passion. "It's in the real world..." (easy normie-observation to justify watching a comic-book movie), "Heath Ledger was amazing" (he was, but he's literally the entire movie - there is very little captivating Batman in TDR), etc.

They are solid flicks but I don't see an entire fandom clamoring to invite that Universe back, or collectors digging in on "Nolan Batman" the way they do on Batman '66 or Batman '89.

Those movies delivered on a real cityscape in which to present Batman, but they are hyped-up though being "talking point" flicks - easy to point out some definitive sentences by, but it seems like that's the extent of the fandom outside of the obscure Hot Toys figure collector.

[CyberCubed]

The Dark Knight was NOT a Joker movie. this was some random psycho who dressed up like a clown.
None of the Joker's usual MO was in this movie.


Every Joker has been tremendously different from another.

[ProphetofGanja]

It's still my favorite Nolan Batman movie, but it has been years since I watched any of them. I think all of the Nolan Batman movies have some plot holes and you're just more inclined to forgive some more than others based on your own personal Rule of Cool



I also think the movie comes across as pretentious at times. Lines like "some men just want to watch the world burn" became memes for a reason, and nearly laughed when I heard it in the movie.

Well part of it is Nolan's visual style I think could be said to be kinda pretentious looking. It's very "grand" and usually it works but sometimes it doesn't. I still love Inception but Tenet was just too much for me, visually it looked appealing but it was just way too convoluted

But also I think that line was memed so much because it really was a good line and ofc Michael Caine is a damn fine actor. You meme what you love just as much as you meme what you hate

[CyberCubed]

Also movie lines become iconic after a movie comes out for a reason, they're memorable or good lines. It's the lines from movies that don't stand out that nobody remembers or talks about.

[Coola Yagami]

It's still my favorite Nolan Batman movie, but it has been years since I watched any of them. I think all of the Nolan Batman movies have some plot holes and you're just more inclined to forgive some more than others based on your own personal Rule of Cool



Well part of it is Nolan's visual style I think could be said to be kinda pretentious looking. It's very "grand" and usually it works but sometimes it doesn't. I still love Inception but Tenet was just too much for me, visually it looked appealing but it was just way too convoluted

But also I think that line was memed so much because it really was a good line and ofc Michael Caine is a damn fine actor. You meme what you love just as much as you meme what you hate

I mean the thing is..... some people really do just want to see the world burn, so the line also works because it's true. There are evil people out there that are evil just because they can be.

[Prowler]

I mean the thing is..... some people really do just want to see the world burn, so the line also works because it's true. There are evil people out there that are evil just because they can be.

True, but a villain who's evil just because isn't very interesting. I am not saying Joker needs to have a sad childhood or anything, but at least a motive other than just wanting to watch the world burn because.

[AquaParade]

I don’t think so. As far as comic book films go, there are few you can argue have the same care and attention to detail. The third act isn’t perfect but that’s nitpicking. It’s a great film and we’d be blessed to have all comicbook films live up to it’s level of quality.

[Coola Yagami]

True, but a villain who's evil just because isn't very interesting. I am not saying Joker needs to have a sad childhood or anything, but at least a motive other than just wanting to watch the world burn because.

That's true but in the Joker's case, one of the things that make him scary is that nothing is known about him. Even in the movie when Batman is throwing him around in the prison interrogation theme, he's laughing saying that he has nothing to threaten him with.

[member_removed]

I liked Batman Begins better.

The Dark Knight was NOT a Joker movie. this was some random psycho who dressed up like a clown.
None of the Joker's usual MO was in this movie.

and if Ledger hadn't of died, the movie wouldn't be remembered so well at all.

I wouldn't go that far, He certainly would've won the Academy Award.
The movie still would have done well. Begins money.

[AquaParade]

That's true but in the Joker's case, one of the things that make him scary is that nothing is known about him. Even in the movie when Batman is throwing him around in the prison interrogation theme, he's laughing saying that he has nothing to threaten him with.

True. Not every character needs to have an arc. Heath’s was an electric performance that was just plain fun and captivating to watch, and sometimes that’s enough. If you want an antagonist with an arc you can look to Harvey Dent.

Heath is the highlight of the movie, but people who act like he’s the only standout thing about it are trippin. It’s got fantastic pacing for most of the runtime and an awesome script.
The ending monologue, for instance, and the way it wraps up the story is incredibly cool. I get chills at the very end every time. Batman taking the fall for Dent, the title of the film coming into narrative focus, Gary Oldman speaking so eloquently, and the Zimmer score budding up… it all comes together beautifully.

My only issue with the film is the way the third-act starts to drag before the awesome crescendo. The boat and construction zone battle tend to bore me. The boat stuff made sense narratively but still felt clunky. And the action scene happening simultaneously doesn’t play to Nolan’s strengths. I am typically hard on the third-act of Blockbuster films. I’m hard to please in that area.

Despite Marvel being some of the worst offenders in this area, they also pulled off the third act beautifully in a few of their films. Civil War and the first Avengers come to mind. Civil War because the emotional apex was effective, with Tony finding out about his parents and the falling out between him & Steve.
Avengers 2012 really nailed it, because you don't truly get what you came to the movie for until the third act - that's when the Avengers actually appear and give us what is probably still the greatest comicbook cgi spectacle, next to Man of Steel. By the time you get to the third act, you aren't necessarily bored with the schtick yet, as is the case with so many other movies in this genre. Instead, you actually feel like you are hitting the climax of the film. I suppose the other key component to that is the way they film is able to briskly move itself towards that third act, with a decent cast who's charisma, luckily, shines through somewhat cliche, if competent, writing.

I bet we could all name a ton of comicbook films, in which the second-act is way more captivating than the third act. That's typically when it feels like we are hitting the high-point. It seems to be a true challenge for these films to carry themselves to the finish line at peak performance. Unless that's just my personal hang-up.

[Andrew NDB]

Yes. Overrated. "Batman Begins" is the better film. Now that movie is a journey.

[Turo602]

I think The Dark Knight trilogy are objectively great films with The Dark Knight easily being my favorite. However, it's also very easy for Batman fans to scrutinize and take issue with many things in this series due to its realistic and grounded approach that veers away from the more traditional take on the character. I know I've been very guilty of this despite my general enjoyment of the movies.

Christopher Nolan is an undeniably great director who makes great use of parallel editing to build suspense, which is further amplified by Hans Zimmer's incredible score. While Christian Bale wasn't particularly great as Batman, the performances on display by everyone else around him is what truly sells the movies. This couldn't be more true of Heath Ledger's Joker who absolutely steals the show in The Dark Knight and even Tom Hardy's Bane in Rises despite not personally liking his casting.

With that said, even though The Dark Knight is one of my favorite comic book movies of all time, it is indeed overrated. Yes, Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director, but he's made more movies that prove that than just The Dark Knight and I think the reason the film has resonated with so many is the same reason people only to go the theaters for MCU movies.

People these days can only watch genre films when they're dressed up with superheroes, and in The Dark Knight's case, this was many people's first exposure to Christopher Nolan's style of filmmaking that they'd usually call boring, but were able to appreciate because it was delivered to them through Batman.

The film is great, but just how great is grossly amplified by a casual audience who finally got to appreciate a "grown up" movie only because it starred Batman, the same way everyone flocked to the theaters to watch a movie about a mentally ill loner discarded by society who is brought to his breaking point and kills a few people just because it was titled Joker.

[ZariusTwo]

I've only ever seen the film once. It's good, I don't think it's overrated, but I've never been compelled to watch it multiple times

I've seen Begins three times, and Dark Knight Rises four times, the latter because of how unintentionally funny it is. The Pavel/CIA/Bane scene is something I quote goddamn endlessly.

[AquaParade]

I’d say it’s not overrated, by way of completely outdoing most of its competition. This film does get placed on a pedestal, which naturally opens it up to much criticism, but what comicbook film even comes close to its all around quality?

I’d say the only two that come close are Logan or Spider-Man 2, but those are from from universal opinions. Nearly everyone can see and respect the quality of TDK tho. It’s the combination of the film having one of today’s best filmmakers and the time and attention given to the filmmaking process. Other comicbook adaptions aren’t typically getting that kind of treatment.

I know Batman Begins has it’s fans but I find the script to be a weak element of the film. And the action is very hard to watch. Slightly improved in TDK but still not a strength of either film, really.

So what adaption is better than TDK?

[IMJ]

I've only ever seen the film once. It's good, I don't think it's overrated, but I've never been compelled to watch it multiple times

I've seen Begins three times, and Dark Knight Rises four times, the latter because of how unintentionally funny it is. The Pavel/CIA/Bane scene is something I quote goddamn endlessly.

I will say this - they are filmed beautifully. Even the 1080p blu-rays look like pure film when upscaled to 4k. Better than the theater actually....

[Galactus]

I think The Dark Knight is rated about right. It's a genuinely good movie. The only thing I don't like about it is the ultra commitment to the 'realistic' aesthetic making it look like a generic 2000s action movie rather than a Batman one. I much prefer Batman Begins approach with a more genuine Batman-esque looking costume and The Narrows based on the walled city of Kowloon was a good idea of how to portray a unique looking crime ridden part of Gotham. It kept the sense of realism while still looking like a Batman movie. All that being said TDK's aesthetic is not a deal breaker and I fully understand for the general movie going audience in 2008 it might have been necessary for them to take it seriously...or maybe not after all Iron Man released not long after with a very different take on a 'realistic' depiction of a super hero and did great.

I'm confused at why anyone would have a problem with the writing of the Joker in this movie. The stories about how he got his scars is the movie's take on how Joker is so mad he doesn't even properly recall his life before he became the Joker “I'm not exactly sure what happened. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice". Speaking of that story his mission to push the people of Gotham to compromise their morals is exactly the same as his mission in The Killing Joke trying to prove everyone would be like him after one really bad day. That's straight out of the most iconic Joker comic story. Truer to the character than the Burton version and certainly more than that Todd Philips nonsense.

[Cowabung-Gal]

Honestly all three films bore me. Heath Ledger’s scenes are like the cups of coffee that keep me from falling asleep, because his performance was so good. Everything else? Meh.

[MikeandRaph87]

I always thought it was given high praise due to Heath Ledger's expected death in post-production due in part to the prescription medication he overdosed on due to his method acting. Sure its a good movie, but it's not even my favorite Batman film. I was disappointed at how Tow Face was used. Joker causes Harvey Dent to become Two Face by corrupting the shinning knight while failing to do so with Batman. I did not care much for the forced love triangle as I always saw Harvey as being married and a part of his character. It was also a mistake to kill him after being Two Face for just a few hours and 15 minutes worth of a film.

Also, I was hoping Batman: The Dark Knight would have continued with what Batman Begins did and showcase two villains yet to be adapted to the silver screen. After Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were portrayed I was hoping for Mad Hatter and Man Bat. We had The Joker and Two Face already even if its in a different continuity.

The movie itself was like CSI with costumes and had elements of crime crime dramas such as Heat and L.A. Confidential more so than a superhero epic. Had Heath Ledger lived I bet he would have had a minor role in the third film. Perhaps it would have been best to have the character killed off and Two Face survive due to real life circumstances.

[Andrew NDB]

As I've said before, watching the movie originally, I never took the ending as that being the death of Harvey. A little 20 foot drop shared with Batman that Batman walked away from fine... I never gave it a second thought. If they wanted to kill him then they should have really killed him, like definitively on screen. Also, I still have no idea what the Joker did to Michael Jai White's character. It looks like he was just lined up to cut his cheek, but then there's a sound effect and he drops dead? I'm left to assume it was actually a throat slice (even though a throat slice wouldn't instantly kill him?) but nothing on the screen really gives you a clear answer. It's filmed very strangely. This didn't stick out to anybody else?

The movies as a trilogy? I immensely dig but it's sorely lacking a movie between "Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises." Bruce's Batman career needs to be longer than 2-3 months, then an 8 year break, and then a couple more weeks and that's it.

[IMJ]

This didn't stick out to anybody else?

Yeah I always thought that exact moment had very awkward editing and didn't convey whatever it was they were trying to convey. It was so awkward it brought me out of the story a bit. Nolan is an amazing film maker but that that kind of stuff happens a lot in across his entire catalog for the sake of "pacing".

The movies as a trilogy? I immensely dig but it's sorely lacking a movie between "Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises." Bruce's Batman career needs to be longer than 2-3 months, then an 8 year break, and then a couple more weeks and that's it

Yeeessssss man. Like - I respected that he built a trilogy based on a life-cycle for Batman's career. Which I didn't see coming until the 3rd movie wrapped up. That was well done as an art statement. But it wasn't well done as story-telling execution and that is mostly because the second movie doesn't really leave you feeling that Batman is in his prime. You just get it based on dialog and film-events inferring so, but you don't see him doing anything great.

And the second failing is that time gap you mentioned. Because if we are to assume that years passed inbetween BB and TDK then it's strange that he got the Joker card at the beginning of his career but never had an interaction with him until a decade of career later. But on the other hand if we assume that it was months into him being Batman then it ruins the "life-cycle" arc completely and in reality we never saw Batman at his peak.

The Nolan movies are both intellectually interesting and also an intellectual mess for the anyone who really considers what he was trying to do.

[Mirror image]

Honestly both Batman Begins and Batman 1989 were better films if you ask me.

Still it is better then Schumacher's contributions even thou in a similar vain as the Dark Knight is overrated I find Batman and Robin overhated. Coming from a David Lynch fan it is at least not as painful to watch as Inland Empire.

[Walkabout]

89 and Returns are where it's at for me.
I did enjoy the Nolan films but I've always found them "overrated", personally.
I find Christopher Nolan overrated.

[tmntpower1988]

Don't really think about Batman Begins much tbh I watched The Dark Knight a few weeks ago, was the first time I watched it in a few years, wasn't into it as much as what I was when it first came out. Can't take Christian Bale seriously as Batman any time he speaks I just feel like laughing. Loved Heath Ledger as the Joker though. I've never watched The Dark Knight Rises, only ever watched clips of it on YouTube. Christian Bale's voice sounds even worse in that "Where's the trigger?" scene :lol: Bane's voice makes me laugh too. I prefer Michael Keaton as Batman.

[Andrew NDB]

Basically...

Batman Begins: Most of the movie is the origin story and Bruce becoming Batman so it's hard to look at it as a SOLID Batman movie, even if it's my favorite one personally.

The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger's death overshadowed it and then retroactively hurt the trilogy in that Nolan abandoned his plans for the Joker in part 3 (and why WOULDN'T Joker be a big part of it, when Bane's letting everybody out and all?). I found the movie OK, not great, but a fine "first Batman" movie. There's a James Bond feel at times that is neat and felt "new" to me, with Batman on screen.

The Dark Knight Rises: I like it fine, but I get the disconnect. An 8 year gap with a retired Batman? Who then just immediately re-retires? Again, it just feels like we're missing a movie or two here and being forced into a rush-rush ending when we were just starting to get comfortable with this Batman.

I think they should have done one of two things:

1) Introduced this Batman with Bale into the DCEU. But Dark Knight Rises would have to be reworked. He can't be having bad knees if he's to be going up against Darkseid.

2) No retiring or re-retiring of Batman in TDKR. Instead, just come back in 2-3 years with another Batman movie. Recast if they must. Different director, if they have to. Between BB and TDK there is a sound launchpad for what could have been a vast saga.