True well it was interesing but i too when to the toilet halfway trough it ^-^The Dark Knight definitely. It was a great film, really interesting. But it wasn't as good as it was made out to be, people were saying it was the film of the decade but it wasn't that good. Acting was good and special effects, but it was so hyped up that when I watched it I expected this thing that I wouldn't keep my eyes off. I easily went to the toilet halfway through it!
Look again. I loved The Dark Knight, but it is still absurdly overrated. No other film has managed to generate such record numbers of appalling hate mail every time a remotely negative review is published.The Dark Knight is not overrated. I do believe it was mentioned earlier, but it's a return to form for films. It's not focused around shiny special effects, it's focused around the writing, the acting, the atmosphere. To the guy who said WB capitalized off of Ledger's death, you're wrong. Well before he died the Joker was already a heavily advertised aspect of the film, and he was a controversial choice that was garnering a ton of attention.
Look again. I loved The Dark Knight, but it is still absurdly overrated. No other film has managed to generate such record numbers of appalling hate mail every time a remotely negative review is published.
And yes, the writing, themes, and acting were all terrific for a populist action movie. But were they the word of god? No. People will tell you it's the deepest movie ever made because they've never seen an independant film or cracked open a book besides Harry Potter. It's a good movie, and I'm glad it exposed people to relatively intellegent cinema, but it is undeniably overrated.
I'd call it 80% blockbuster, 20% arthouse, and people are acting like it's the other way around.The Dark Knight is the worlds first Arthouse blockbuster it deserved every moment of press coverage it got.
And like many "great" movies, it is overrated. A movie can be terrific, but if people act like it's the second coming of Jesus, it's still overrrated.That makes it great
The Dark Knight - I really enjoyed it, and I'm inclined to like most things with Batman in them. But people take it way to seriously. I haven't seen populist philosophy that ham-fisted since...anything I can remember, really.
If you're starving for "deep-thinkey" Batman, read a copy of The Dark Knight Returns, or even The Dark Knight Strikes Again.
He said before it was released that it would be a response to the dark era of comic writing he'd ushered in. The Dark Knight Strikes Again is supposed to be the polar opposite of DKR. It's flashy, it uses large images and incomprehensible digital art to show a media saturation far different from the talking heads of the former book. It's a book that discourages all that while nearly outright saying "Superheroes are supposed to be fun. Look up to us again." He could've done that by writing a campy silver-age romp, but instead he mixed it in with unsettling satire. This book was supposed to anger DKR fans, but to do so with a purpose.DKSA is Frank Miller taking what he popularized with DKR and Year One, namely GRIM GRITTY NOIR Batman, and beating it into the ground with bad writing, ugly, ugly art, and one of the worst color jobs I've seen in a comic. Even starving men shouldn't eat rotten apples.
Alright, so that was stupid. But it's not out of line with the surreal, Miller-having-fun mood of the book.For god's sake the villain is Dick Grayson.