Dark Knight Movie Review & Why It Sucks

The Dark Knight is a direct sequel to 2005's Batman Begins, largely considered the greatest comic book hero adaptation film in history. I echo that sentiment, and unfortunately hold it to still be true even after seeing The Dark Knight.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the action and spectacle of The Dark Knight--and will most assuredly pre-purchase the DVD--my critical side is alarmed. After the complex depths with which Director and Screenwriter Christopher Nolan delved into the psyche of Bruce Wayne and made Batman believable in the previous film, I cannot help but feel that the Caped Crusader was shortchanged this time around. I can sum up Batman's/Bruce Wayne's character development through the course of The Dark Knight in the following sentence: Batman upgraded his suit so that he can turn his head. That's it . . . Seriously.

The film makes the mistake, in my opinion, of repeating the sins of the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films that Warner Bros. tried so hard to disown with this recent reinvention of the franchise: The Dark Knight focuses too heavily on the antagonist and secondary characters rather than the development of Batman as a hero. Cramming two arch-villains into one movie further exacerbates the problem and reduces Christian Bale's screen time even further.

On the good side, Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker is unquestionably the best ever seen. The film effectively portrays The Joker's uncanny ability to get under Batman's skin. Gone are the Disneyland parade floats and poison gas attacks from the sleeve, as seen in the Tim Burton film. Whereas Jack Nicholson's Joker was a pompous prince and easily forgettable rapscallion with little impact, Nolan's Joker is far more disturbing. He's fully believable as a hands-on murderer, arsonist and demolitionist with a penchant of doing the exact opposite of what ration criminals and crimefighters would consider logical. But under the facial scars and clown paint, he honestly seems human. Ledger takes full advantage of what remains of The Joker's subverted humanity in several calm moments during the film when talking to other characters. Ledger takes character traits we usually find endearing in normal people and uses them to portray a villain who does insane things, but isn't necessarily insane. The only times I found myself disagreeing with Nolan's and Ledger's Joker were moments when the character begged for someone to kill him. Understanding that The Joker approaches crime and mayhem with a clear sense of his own purpose (to fraction society), the character undertaking his actions out of a suicidal tendency doesn't stand to reason. Still, I'm glad to finally see The Joker done mostly right, and in line with writer Alan Moore's unforgettable take on the character, The Killing Joke. However, the film's intense focus on the villain and his exploits leads me to question why they titled it "The Dark Knight" and not "The Joker".

The other villain in the film is Two-Face, a madman whose face is half-handsome, half-horrible, probably as a challenge to amateur comic artists. For me, Two-Face has always been one of the most chilling Batman villains. The guy flips a coin and you have a 50% chance of exiting the room alive regardless of your guilt or innocence. There's nothing colder than leaving someone's fate to a coin toss. For most of the film, Two-Face is Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent . . . and a hero. Dent's physical transformation into the villain as depicted in the film is probably one of the best scenarios thus far. (In the comics, Sal Maroni only threw sulfuric acid on the left half of Dent's face during a courtroom trial. Not as effective.) As far as the visual effects are concerned, Two-Face's visage in this film is utterly shocking and disturbing, far more than The Joker. But unfortunately, I feel like we get the Cliff's Notes version of Two-Face's transformation through the use of a hackneyed romantic revenge scenario. Batman fans understand that the film's portrayal of Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne as budding buddies is right on the money. However, Harvey becoming a raving maniac because The Joker "talks him into it" is completely implausible. With the Sal Maroni character readily available in the film, I get the sense that something may have been muddled in the script rewrites. From the comics, we at least get the backstory that Harvey Dent is the abused son of an alcoholic, who secretly suffers from schizophrenia and multiple personalities before his physical transformation into supervillain. So therein, his personality schism is somewhat more believable in light of his accident. As propagated in the film, Two-Face feels tacked on at the last minute when he could have just as easily waylaid until the obviously forthcoming third film in this series.

Between Harvey Dent and The Joker, there is little time to catch up with Bruce Wayne or Batman. While I enjoyed the readily apparent metaphor of Bruce Wayne becoming layered with scar tissue while his alter ego remains an unstoppable vigilante, his fleeting reunion with Rachel Dawes provided little opportunity for advancement of his character. And with so little actual focus on Batman and what the actions of The Joker and Two-Face mean for his crimefighting career, I can't help but feel that the film left me wanting for a protagonist. Perhaps it was the influence of seeing the trailer for Watchmen prior to the film, but several scenes made me wonder if there wasn't some heavily buried message in play that Batman is a fascist symbol and an unnecessary hero.

And so with respects to the screenplay and story organization, I have to declare The Dark Knight to be a glorious mess. The action scenes are spectacular and the villains are diabolical, but the message is ultimately muddled since the focus is on the villains' acts of terrorism rather than the hero's solutions. It's a 180 degrees turn from the previous film, and the ending seems to foreshadow more of the same in the next feature. But still, as spectacle and summertime fun, there's probably nothing better this summer.

You're probably thinking - "Oh no! Not another The Dark Knight review!" Trust me, this isn't one. This movie has already been reviewed ad nauseum and for the purpose of this article it is entirely irrelevant whether I personally liked it or not. Besides, anyone and their grandma calls themselves a critic nowadays so I'm not joining the ranks on this sole principle.

Even if you should have just returned from 40 days of fasting in the middle of desert you would have heard of the most commercially successful movie ever filmed. The Dark Knight broke box office records and set new highs in the world of commercial filmography. Everyone seems to have gone to see The Dark Knight, everyone seems to have written their "review" over at IMDB and everyone seems to have given it 10 out of 10 stars rating. It almost seemed as though the crowds were hypnotized and any rating other than 10 was not even an option.

I've been trying hard to think of anything more irritating than seemingly blindfolded fanboys who religiously repeat their "the best movie of the year" or "the best of all time" chants every time they get a chance and I couldn't. This ludicrous overhyping and overrating of a single picture created a force that resulted in a counterforce. Whether you call it the cause and effect phenomenon, or Newton's third law of motion, the outcome is clear. For many people - The Dark Knight Sucks. The movie is good - it's not great, but it's not a complete failure either.

If you enter "The Dark Knight Sucks" into Google search engine, you will get over 3 million results. Why would so many people react with utter underrating of a movie that's actually pretty decent? Your answer is above. One extreme calls for another. If one extremist labels it "the best movie ever", the other one responds with "The Dark Knight Sucks".

I can imagine some of those people who gave The Dark Knight 1 or 2 star out of 10 on IMDB, would have otherwise given it 6 or 7 stars, because even if they particularly didn't like it, they didn't really think it was that bad. But to balance out the madness started by the overhyping crowd, the opposing party let themselves heard by blatant underrating. Oh the irony... Why make it such a big deal? It's just the movie!

Please Rate this Article

4 Hero Mp3

How Blockbuster Total Access Works

Seeing the success of Netflix and faced with their growing competition, Blockbuster rolled out their version of an online DVD rental program. It is called Blockbuster Total Access. Now it is very similar to the other online programs but has some other options not offered by their competitors.

Blockbuster Total Access starts with you signing up. You have several different plans to choose from each having different options. The high end plan offers unlimited DVD's through the mail and 3 DVD's at a time for 34.99. The lower end Blockbuster Total Access plan is 3.99 a month and includes 2 DVD's a month. There are also many plans in between so you can find the plan that works best for you.

After signing up for Blockbuster Total Access you need to start by selecting the movies you want to watch. You have to browse through the over 80,000 titles available for rent. You then select the ones you want to see and they are added to what is called your queue. You can have hundreds of movies in your queue or just a few the choice is up to you.

Next, the movies in your queue will be mailed to you. How many at a time depends on your plan. You then can watch the movies or wait for the right time. The idea of this Blockbuster Total Access is no late fees so you do not have to return them by a specific date. You can just keep them as long as you would like.

The thing that makes Blockbuster Total Access different than their competitors is the return process. With each movie you rent a return envelope is sent to you with prepaid postage. You can use this to send back the movie that you watched or go another route. You can just drop them off at a Blockbuster location near you and they will mail the movie for you or do an in-store exchange. Meaning, you can go to your local Blockbuster store and pick a movie off of their shelves and rent it. This will be considered an exchange for the movie you got in the mail. It depends on your Blockbuster Total Access plan how many in-store exchanges you are allowed. The higher end Blockbuster Total Access plan allows for unlimited in-store exchanges. If you do mail them back, Blockbuster Total Access will just send you the movie from your queue.

This program has only been around since 2004 and Blockbuster has really focused on growing this part of their business. It is reported that Blockbuster Total Access had over 3 million subscribers by the beginning of 2007. This subscriber based will only grow with time as even more of their frequent store renters transition to online DVD rental.

Please Rate this Article

Mp3 Music

How To Make A Great Movie Hero

A film's protagonist can be the most important part of the puzzle when creating a great film. A great director, script or setting can be ruined if the central character, the hero, is badly cast or acted. Film characters can be as important as the actor who is cast, with some actors rescuing poor films while good actors face a futile challenge when cast as a badly conceived character.

When super-hero movies were making a big comeback, Halle Berry would have been forgiven for thinking that Catwoman would be a big hit but hindsight would point to the opposite. Weak characterisation and a non-existent storyline made the film a critical and box-office failure, while Batman, Superman and Spiderman have made a success of a similar plot. So, what makes a movie's hero successful?

A movie's success can be largely attributed to a well written script, with realistic characters and a strong plot-line. The film's hero must have some, if not all of the following characteristics: likable, believable, sympathetic, heroic, spirited, vulnerable and courageous. These traditional elements will help turn a movie character into a great movie hero.

Many of the most quintessential movie heroes are based on the main attribute of courage and heroism. Obviously, the term heroic will be evident in all movie heroes, but generally will be shown in adventurous, risk-taking and dangerous behaviour. This is epitomised by the characters of James Bond and Indiana Jones.

Massively different, yet representing comparable characters, the British secret agent and American archaeologist bear many similarities. Bond is charismatic, smooth and charming while Jones appears a rugged, brash and trying hero. Despite their superficial differences, they both risk their lives for their job and attempt (successfully) to seduce every female that they come across.

Although these characters appear vaguely realistic, they are fundamentally similar to the super-heroes of comic-book movies. Superman, as the name suggests, is one of the ultimate movie heroes in terms of powers and what he tries to achieve. Despite the obvious lack of realism regarding his strengths and abilities, Superman and his alter-ego Clark Kent are based strongly in a believable and likeable human character.

The everyman character that enables the audience to empathise with them is the perfect movie hero when possessing additional characteristics or talents that elevate them above the supporting characters. Superheroes are traditionally normal people who transform into their more powerful, exceptional and 'special' self.

The heroic character will be represented in physical form by the super-hero, Batman, Superman or Spiderman, while the moral heroics will be evident in the human form of Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent or Peter Parker. All three of these characters possess the 'everyman' qualities of likeability without displaying traditional characteristics of an adventure-story hero.

Bruce Wayne is shy and introverted with little charisma or charm, depicted in the Batman movie by Michael Keaton. His quiet, softly-spoken persona removes him from the Batman character that we see in the same movie as he adopts a new personality when he wears the physical mask and suit. This Bruce Wayne is very similar to the Peter Parker as depicted by Tobey Maguire in the recent Spiderman movies.

Adversity plays a key role in the triumph of an heroic protagonist as they battle physical or emotional trauma in order to succeed. Russell Crowe's Maximus in Gladiator overcomes tremendous physical hardship as well as the murders of his wife and son before eventually gaining revenge on the film's antagonist. Although set in ancient Rome, the everyman character induces a tremendous amount of audience sympathy for the character's struggle.

A great movie hero is someone that fights their problems, not only physically, and despite any adversity maintains dignity and pride throughout the struggle. One of the most popular movie heroes to have demonstrated these qualities include To Kill A Mocking Bird's Atticus Finch who, despite social disapproval, defends a black man accused of rape. Finch is entirely impartial in the case and represents the conscience and good nature of the human race, in contrast to the judgmental and discriminating town members.

A hero's role within the movie is to represent the audience on-screen and act in a way that depicts the emotion and feelings that the viewers are experiencing. If this is achieved, then the hero will be successful, whether they possess superpowers, moral weakness or is just an everyman. To make the ultimate movie hero, the story will encourage an audience's empathy while maintaining the hero's position as a figure of unattainable and enviable power.

Please Rate this Article

Download Best Mp3