What do you dislike about The Dark Knight?

[T'Baio]

Don't get me wrong. I love the film. I think it's brilliant and is one of my favourite comic films. But when a film is this good, sometimes it's fun to talk about what you don't like.

- I still hate the Tumbler, and the Bat-Pod might even be worse. Really dumb.
- Batman is super destructive. At the end, they're talking about making Gotham hate him, but I hate to break it to you, they probably already would. The way he smashes through walls with the Tumbler in a parking garage, running over cars, to blowing them out his way as he races down the street in the Bat-Pod, he's completely reckless. He endangers innocent lives wherever he goes. Gotham taxes would be through the roof correcting his damage. Who's gonna' pay for all those cars he destroyed?
- The party scene. It's a fun scene, and Heath Ledger is great in it, but from Batman and Rachel surviving that ridiculous fall, to Bruce wondrously knowing to suddenly protect Dent, to the Joker apparently just leaving after Batman saves Rachel? A lot of little things not really well thought out.
- The sonar? Kinda' retarded, and a major effort in giving the audience a seizure, not to mention Bruce. What's going on, anyway? An effort to hide bad action direction, perhaps?

What do you think? Great film, but some minor nit picks.

And don't worry...I'll do Iron Man next.

[captcalhoun]

killing Two-Face is my only gripe.

[iguana_tonante]

I'll play.

T'Baio wrote:

---

- I still hate the Tumbler, and the Bat-Pod might even be worse. Really dumb.

Agreed. Sounds cool on paper, or in its original Dark Knight Return inception (almost post-apocalyptic Gotham City), but in an urban environment, it's just too fucking big.

- Batman is super destructive. [...] Who's gonna' pay for all those cars he destroyed?

Wayne Insurance, Inc. obviously. They are cheap and very reliable.

- The sonar? [...] What's going on, anyway? An effort to hide bad action direction, perhaps?

Or the fact that the actor doing the stunt just can't fight credibly with the bat-armor on. I agree that he need something more than just spandex, and it's better than the Burton's full-body armor, but it's still too cumbersome. He's a fucking ninja, for heaven's sake. Let him move like one!

I have a small complaint about story-telling, too: the movie is too long, and the Two-Faces storyline is too cramped toward the end of the movie. Given all the material they had, they could have gone the Matrix route (or the LOTR one, for a more successful comparison) and shot two movies one after the other.

[Agent Richard07]

I agree with the damage bit. Batman shouldn't have been in the police force's good graces after all that. I also agree about the tumbler. I like it, but I keep thinking that it looks too big and too impractical.

As for what else I don't like...

- Recasting really bugs me to no end, so I hate that Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes. It didn't hurt my enjoyement of the movie, but I still consider it a major gripe.

- Batman's costume looked kind of odd with that little round helmet-head.

- I liked that they used a real world-looking Gotham, but don't like that the whole look and tone doesn't match up with the first movie. Oddly enough, this is more of a criticism of the first movie. I wish Batman Begins was more in line with The Dark Knight.

[Gojirob]

I would have just let the blame for the crimes Harvey committed settle on the Joker. No public statement of his, presuming he even denied it, would be believed. Batman, by taking that blame, has now made his mission wholly untenable. Cops don't forget certain things, and a supposed cop-killer tops that list. Hell, even if he were cleared the next day with credible evidence, there are some cops, particularly on an urban PD like Gotham's, who would never believe he didn't really do it. Part 3 will have to tell us if they can credibly salvage his ability to fight crime. Gordon, IMO, will not be able to control his people. He'll say one level of 'bring him in' and they will be thinking a very different one.

[Agent Richard07]

Gojirob wrote:

---

Part 3 will have to tell us if they can credibly salvage his ability to fight crime.

It's been argued that he'll be even more effective because criminals will now believe that he's willing to kill, something they knew he wouldn't do before.

[Lapis Exilis]

Well, I love the Tumbler - and it's actually tiny. It's an armored sports car, not a tank. But I absolutely agree about the blowing up of parked cars - totally stupid and destructive and only in the movie to satisfy some 'splosions quota. And while I appreciate Nolan's desire to CGI as little as possible there are times that it causes bad cuts - such as when the Tumbler wrecks and blows through a wall into an alley, spinning on its front bumper. It is clearly about to fall on its roof, but then there's a cut and it lands on its wheels, against all laws of physics.

Let's see, other nits...

Bruce Wayne putting on a white shirt over an unbandaged, recently stitched wound in his arm in order to go to a business meeting. Not bright.

The general underwritten nature of Rachel Dawes - her motivations are murky at best throughout most of the film, and the quality of her as a tough DA was pretty much lost.

I'm still not clear on why Gordon faked his death other than to provide a nifty reveal at the Joker's capture.

Why does Bruce go to the apartment he identifed from the fingerprint as himself? He didn't know the guys inside would all be conveniently blindfolded.

Batman should not have been shot in full light except for the interrogation scene. The scene in the bank vault and on the roof with Gordon and Dent come across as somewhat awkward because he's in too much light.

[Samurai8472]

T'Baio wrote:

---

- The sonar? Kinda' retarded, and a major effort in giving the audience a seizure, not to mention Bruce. What's going on, anyway? An effort to hide bad action direction, perhaps?

We had the microwave emitter in "Begins" and the sonar in "Dark Knight". I'm wondering what kind of implausible machine we'll get in the third movie.

My minor dislike is reusing areas of Chicago from "Begins" We have that car park in the beginning
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eye4it/...n/photostream/

and the lower wacker drive where the tumbler destroyed some cop cars in "Begins" and in "The dark knight" pummeled a garbage truck.

I wouldn't be surprised if the third film uses these locations again. Still its only a minor gripe


What I don't understand is how Batman knew where to find Dent at the end. He was completely focused on tracking Joker with the sonar and getting Lucius to help.

"Meet at the place where my family died" Gordon shouldn't have even figured that out.

[Thespeckledkiwi]

- Joker's origin. I like that it was still murky but Batman still should have had a heavy hand in creating the Joker.

- Gordon's rapid ascent to commissioner. Allll right...

- Mob scenes...Are they really necessary? That much of it?

- Two - Face, too little time.

[Haytil]

T'Baio wrote:

---

- Batman is super destructive. At the end, they're talking about making Gotham hate him, but I hate to break it to you, they probably already would. The way he smashes through walls with the Tumbler in a parking garage, running over cars, to blowing them out his way as he races down the street in the Bat-Pod, he's completely reckless. He endangers innocent lives wherever he goes. Gotham taxes would be through the roof correcting his damage. Who's gonna' pay for all those cars he destroyed?

Yeah, but if you look at it from the other direction - how much taxes are drained by a completely and totally corrupt police department and municipal government? It's likely that Batman has at least put a serious dent in that corruption - thus saving quite a bit of dough.

- The party scene. It's a fun scene, and Heath Ledger is great in it, but from Batman and Rachel surviving that ridiculous fall, to Bruce wondrously knowing to suddenly protect Dent, to the Joker apparently just leaving after Batman saves Rachel? A lot of little things not really well thought out.

I agree about the fall being a bit unbelievable, but Joker's leaving made perfect sense. He was in every way outmatched and knew he shouldn't stick around. Batman was wailing on his ass, and dropping Rachel was a good distraction to provide him with an exit - it wasn't a game-changer. If Joker hadn't left, he would've been taken down.

FYI, there WAS a scene filmed with him leaving the party and commenting to his goon about getting Dent another time. But it was cut - presumably because it was unnecessary (I thought it was superfluous to explain why he was leaving. It seemed pretty obvious to me that he had to, and I guess it did to Nolan as well).

- The sonar? Kinda' retarded, and a major effort in giving the audience a seizure, not to mention Bruce. What's going on, anyway? An effort to hide bad action direction, perhaps?

I like it. It gives a real-world explanation for Batman's "totally white" eyes in the comics and makes him scary-looking in the dark. It's also scary knowing he can see through walls and look anywhere he wants into the city. Think of it as a "pre-Oracle version of Oracle."

captcalhoun wrote:

---

killing Two-Face is my only gripe.

Agreed. The major mistake made in this movie was killing Two-Face. The fall of Harvey Dent - and Batman's continuous, endless struggle to bring him back from madness - is a core part of Batman. It's a constant reminder of the dangers of fighting crime, of the sacrifices that good people make, and of the madness that lurks in all of us (and the risk we take of exposing that when we go to extremes).

Harvey Dent's personal connection to Batman is what makes him such an important villain. That connection is broken, never brought back fresh, once he's dead.

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Agreed. Sounds cool on paper, or in its original Dark Knight Return inception (almost post-apocalyptic Gotham City), but in an urban environment, it's just too fucking big.

Some would argue that the Bat-pod is an attempt to rectify the hulk that is the Tumbler. Faster, sleeker, more mobile, just like the new Bat-suit. Batman is becoming more flexible.

I have a small complaint about story-telling, too: the movie is too long, and the Two-Faces storyline is too cramped toward the end of the movie. Given all the material they had, they could have gone the Matrix route (or the LOTR one, for a more successful comparison) and shot two movies one after the other.

There were rumors they were going to do that in the beginning.

I agree that there's a LOT of story for one movie - maybe too much. But there isn't enough for TWO movies, and if they tried that, they'd have to come up with more plot - which would ultimately feel like padding (like the Pirate of the Carribean movies).

Quantum of Xmas wrote:

---

- Recasting really bugs me to no end, so I hate that Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes. It didn't hurt my enjoyement of the movie, but I still consider it a major gripe.

See, to me, Gyllenhaal was SO much better than Holmes. I hate re-casting too - but for me, I'm just upset that it was Holmes initially, rather than Gyllenhaal later.

They should've gotten it right the first time.

Gojirob wrote:

---

I would have just let the blame for the crimes Harvey committed settle on the Joker....Batman, by taking that blame, has now made his mission wholly untenable. Cops don't forget certain things, and a supposed cop-killer tops that list.

There's no way that the Joker did ALL of that (while orchestrating the ferry fiasco), and he had no motive to (why would he kill Weurtz, a corrupt cop, for instance?). An independent investigator would soon be able to show that. Batman, on the other hand, is much more shadowy and mysterious - I think it'd be harder to prove that he didn't do it.

Also, Batman is more exciting when he's at odds with the cops - not all buddy-buddy. Similarly, Gordon is more interesting when he has to clandestinely work with Batman. When the cops authorize Batman, that kills the tension, drama, and secrecy.

What Nolan did was brilliant. In "Batman Begins," Batman was obviously at odds with the police. At the end of that film, they join forces (via the Bat-signal). This way, he was credibly put in the position of going against the cops once more, in a believable way, story-wise.

This ensures that the movies aren't just episodic comics-in-motion (Batman fights this crazy madman in this movie, and that crazy madman in the next movie, and a third in the one after, etc.) Instead, we get a story about Batman's effects on the city and his interactions with different parts of society - not just a boring action-fest.

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Why does Bruce go to the apartment he identifed from the fingerprint as himself? He didn't know the guys inside would all be conveniently blindfolded.

For the same reason you mentioned - Batman would be ridiculous in broad daylight. Remember, even without the suit, he's still a ninja - if he wanted to go unseen as "Bruce Wayne," he could have, blindfolded cops or not.

TheBolianChoir wrote:

---

- Mob scenes...Are they really necessary? That much of it?

Actually, I don't think there's ENOUGH mob scenes in these movies. They're now portrayed as inept, foolish criminals, who aren't nearly as threatening or important as the rogues gallery (Ra's al Ghul, Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow).

But one of the interesting parts of Batman's early career is just how insidious organized crime is in early Gotham. It's everywhere, an aspect of every part of society, and so Batman has to fight that - in many different ways. Another interesting theme is "The Mob vs. The Freaks" - the rise of the crazy madmen and the fall of the mob. It's hinted at in this movie, but I don't think it was touched on strongly enough.

The role of the mob also helps to ground the story in reality - we don't have terrorists like The Joker walking the street, but the mob DOES exist in our society. So it's important to see Batman do battle with an actual aspect of modern-day, real-life crime.

[Plomeek Broth]

Not many gripes

I love Christian Bale except for his annoying growl of a Batman voice.

Movie should have been just about the Joker and leave Two-Face for a sequel.

[Gojirob]

Haytil wrote:

---

Yeah, but if you look at it from the other direction - how much taxes are drained by a completely and totally corrupt police department and municipal government? It's likely that Batman has at least put a serious dent in that corruption - thus saving quite a bit of dough.

I agree about the fall being a bit unbelievable, but Joker's leaving made perfect sense. He was in every way outmatched and knew he shouldn't stick around. Batman was wailing on his ass, and dropping Rachel was a good distraction to provide him with an exit - it wasn't a game-changer. If Joker hadn't left, he would've been taken down.

FYI, there WAS a scene filmed with him leaving the party and commenting to his goon about getting Dent another time. But it was cut - presumably because it was unnecessary (I thought it was superfluous to explain why he was leaving. It seemed pretty obvious to me that he had to, and I guess it did to Nolan as well).

I like it. It gives a real-world explanation for Batman's "totally white" eyes in the comics and makes him scary-looking in the dark. It's also scary knowing he can see through walls and look anywhere he wants into the city. Think of it as a "pre-Oracle version of Oracle."



Agreed. The major mistake made in this movie was killing Two-Face. The fall of Harvey Dent - and Batman's continuous, endless struggle to bring him back from madness - is a core part of Batman. It's a constant reminder of the dangers of fighting crime, of the sacrifices that good people make, and of the madness that lurks in all of us (and the risk we take of exposing that when we go to extremes).

Harvey Dent's personal connection to Batman is what makes him such an important villain. That connection is broken, never brought back fresh, once he's dead.



Some would argue that the Bat-pod is an attempt to rectify the hulk that is the Tumbler. Faster, sleeker, more mobile, just like the new Bat-suit. Batman is becoming more flexible.

There were rumors they were going to do that in the beginning.

I agree that there's a LOT of story for one movie - maybe too much. But there isn't enough for TWO movies, and if they tried that, they'd have to come up with more plot - which would ultimately feel like padding (like the Pirate of the Carribean movies).



See, to me, Gyllenhaal was SO much better than Holmes. I hate re-casting too - but for me, I'm just upset that it was Holmes initially, rather than Gyllenhaal later.

They should've gotten it right the first time.



There's no way that the Joker did ALL of that (while orchestrating the ferry fiasco), and he had no motive to (why would he kill Weurtz, a corrupt cop, for instance?). An independent investigator would soon be able to show that. Batman, on the other hand, is much more shadowy and mysterious - I think it'd be harder to prove that he didn't do it.

Also, Batman is more exciting when he's at odds with the cops - not all buddy-buddy. Similarly, Gordon is more interesting when he has to clandestinely work with Batman. When the cops authorize Batman, that kills the tension, drama, and secrecy.

What Nolan did was brilliant. In "Batman Begins," Batman was obviously at odds with the police. At the end of that film, they join forces (via the Bat-signal). This way, he was credibly put in the position of going against the cops once more, in a believable way, story-wise.

This ensures that the movies aren't just episodic comics-in-motion (Batman fights this crazy madman in this movie, and that crazy madman in the next movie, and a third in the one after, etc.) Instead, we get a story about Batman's effects on the city and his interactions with different parts of society - not just a boring action-fest.

For the same reason you mentioned - Batman would be ridiculous in broad daylight. Remember, even without the suit, he's still a ninja - if he wanted to go unseen as "Bruce Wayne," he could have, blindfolded cops or not.

Actually, I don't think there's ENOUGH mob scenes in these movies. They're now portrayed as inept, foolish criminals, who aren't nearly as threatening or important as the rogues gallery (Ra's al Ghul, Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow).

But one of the interesting parts of Batman's early career is just how insidious organized crime is in early Gotham. It's everywhere, an aspect of every part of society, and so Batman has to fight that - in many different ways. Another interesting theme is "The Mob vs. The Freaks" - the rise of the crazy madmen and the fall of the mob. It's hinted at in this movie, but I don't think it was touched on strongly enough.

The role of the mob also helps to ground the story in reality - we don't have terrorists like The Joker walking the street, but the mob DOES exist in our society. So it's important to see Batman do battle with an actual aspect of modern-day, real-life crime.

Its one thing for the cops not to be on Batman's side, quite another for them to believe he killed their own. They're trying for a realistic PD as best they can in these films, and in RL cop-killers get supreme priority in any form of PD. Even in the Godfather, it took a major series of efforts to make Michael able to walk in the light of day after the restaurant. I see your point, but I still would have placed the cops' deaths with another party. There's being hunted, and then there's open season.

Also, I thought by Mob scenes, TBC meant crowds of people, not the gangst-ers/as.

[MeanJoePhaser]

The party scene was obligatory villain meets hero's love interest cliche, typical of the old franchise, too. (But probably necessary, I'll admit).

Two-Face's overdone injuries...how does he just refuse skin grafts? They'd sedate his ass. Would he even be given an option in his condition? And the eyelidless eyeball? Did they actually consult anyone about that?

Some of Gotham probably would hate Batman. But Gotham City is mess. Decent people shouldn't live there, they'd be happier someplace else!

[Harvey]

The sonar is annoyingly unbelievable, as already mentioned.

But what really gets me is the ending. Batman taking the rap for those murders doesn't do any good. For a while, yes, the criminals might be extra cautious, fearing Batman now uses lethal force. But after a while, they'll realize that he won't, because Batman doesn't use lethal force. And the whole ruse will be for naught. Worse, the police will remain after Batman, and pissed at Batman, for a long, long time.

[flavaflav]

1. waaaaaaaaaaaay too long
2. Batman kills the bad guy... again
3. zero detective work
4. soundtrack was abysmal
5. the Bat-voice
6. Batman destroying everything in his path while in the Tumbler
7. faked Gordon death. it was pointless
8. no laughing gas for the Joker (should have been created by Scarecrow)
9. the ending, no matter how you try to spin it, was terrible and made no sense on any level
10. Batman being able to drive under and around trucks while on the motorcycle, but then crashes and goes unconscious avoiding the Joker
11. the entire China sequence. waste of time and comes across utterly rediculous
12. the sonar.... ugh....

That being said, it was a very good movie for what it was. But one of the greatest ever? Top 20 all time? Not even close.