High Budget Sci-Fi Films That Disappointed You!
- Thread starter Truth_Seeker
- Start date
Well, it is not a bad movie. The performances are good, and the direction is crisp (I've never really had a problem with Nolan's action sequences and he does a good job in this film with building tension, making the viewer glued to the screen).
My problem with the movie is the writing. It felt like they tried to cram two or three movies in there. I remember looking at my watch when I first saw it after they captured the Joker (the first time), thinking the film was nearing a natural conclusion. Then I saw there was still a good hour left. Everything after that part felt really, really forced to me.
I also could not buy Harvey's transformation into Two-Face. That seemed very, very forced. I realize he was in a lot of pain (physically and emotionally), but considering his actions throughout the entire film, I could not see him fall into Joker's temptation that easily. I know you can argue that we saw signs of it when Harvey was threatening to kill Joker's minion, but as we later learn, he had no intention of killing him because the coin is a two-head coin (meaning that it was always going to come up in favor of not killing).
I also couldn't buy into the ease that Joker had to not only obtain an endless amount of explosives, but had the ability to strap them to wherever he needed them to be strapped to. Where did he get the explosives from? How did NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE CITY notice a large amount of explosives either come into the city or being taken from in-city businesses. You might argue that the mob helped. Fair point, but by the time of the boat sequence, everyone in town hated Joker.
Also, the Gordon is dead/not dead thing made no sense. Who was in on it? Batman? Dent? Both? Neither? I am inclined that neither were in on it as Batman visited Gordon's house after he was "killed". This implies he was paying his respects. In any event, why would he go if he knew Gordon was alive? Also, I do not believe Dent was in on it either given his conversation with Batman shortly after Gordon's "killing". In any event, what was the point of all this? To capture the Joker? If it was, it still made no sense, because the events that lead up to the reveal of Gordon being alive were all put into motion after he faked his death. Batman being called out by the public. Dent claiming to be Batman. The chase with Joker. Also, how did Gordon know it was going to go down the way it did. You can argue that he made a reasonable prediction on Joker's actions. Fair point, but that goes against the fact that the movie portrayed Joker being completely unpredictable. Maybe he worked with Batman and Dent, but the evidence in the film contradicts this possibility.
Joker's capture at the end felt very anti-climatic considering everything that he did during the film. When I first saw it, I said to myself, "Really? Bats just leaves him hanging?" Then the cops showed up and I thought for sure that Joker was going to get loose again. But that didn't happen (as far as we know, anyway).
The biggest writing weakness was that Batman decided to take the fall for Dent. There was absolutely no reason for this to happen. It felt like Nolan and Co. were in the writing room and said, "We need to end this movie somehow and tie it back to Batman. How about we make him "bad" in the eyes of the cops." A simple and easier plan would to have blamed Joker for Dent's killings. It wouldn't add additional complications to Batman's work, it would clear Dent, and people already hate the Joker and would easily believe it.
I was also somewhat disappointed in the reduced screen time of Alfred, Lucius, and, to a lesser extent, Batman/Bruce Wayne. However, this really isn't a fault of TDK as a film. Just considering their larger presence in Batman Begins, I was hoping that would have been retained.
In the end, I came out of that film feeling very empty and wondering why it was getting the amount praise it was getting. The film is growing on me a bit, but those points above are not going to go away for me anytime soon.
I also realize that I am in the minority on this one.
I actually liked that one despite the negative reviews by the critics and the Razzie awards. The concept was interesting and the acting was not bad at all. I usually do not share the opinions of the critics (signature
) and often enjoy the movies they've panned ("Waterworld" for example).
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
If it makes you feel any worse...I don't like Green Day.Wow, I liked War of the Worlds (watched it today, for that matter), Hancock, SW Ep III, A.I., and the Dark Knight, and liked them all.
Judging by my taste in men, I always knew something was wrong with me, but this confirms it, like, for real.
I think the Nolan's were hoping that the impetus of Rachel's death would push Harvey over the edge. I mean, how many films have we seen where a single character's death literally transforms a good, hard-working man or woman and turns them into a killer? I'm thinking of The Punisher, but then again, he has a history of killing so for him to suddenly kill without remorse isn't too far-fetched. Straw Dogs, starring Dustin Hoffman, might be a better example. Hoffman plays a loving husband who goes apeshit after his wife is brutalized and murdered by thugs. Law Abiding Citizen is another recent example of a movie where a loving, normal person loses all sanity and goes crazy extracting revenge for the loss of those he loved.
So because of Harvey's main motivation I understand a little bit how he could start going on a killing rampage. I mean, he only killed those who were responsible for Rachel's death. Or those he thought were responsible. Harvey's mind was a little on the fragile side after losing Rachel and being scarred so I can buy him getting manipulated by The Joker, however I understand how most of this can be hard to buy.
The Joker apparently had a lot of dependable but strangely expendable thugs. That's a plot point I think Chris Nolan wanted left untouched, because he felt it added to the mystique and ambiguity of the Joker character.
This is a big plot point which a lot of people have a hard time with, and I guess I can understand this. I simply buy into Gordon's explanation that he wanted to protect his family. Commissioner Loeb and Judge Suriello both had just perished and for all Gordon knew he was next on the list. I think reading too much into it is exactly that. Making the Joker think he was dead allowed him to remain out of the spotlight until he could capture the Joker. That's why he was pissed when he realized the Joker wanted to be put in the MCU because in Gordon's mind faking his death was everything. I'm sure he realizes now that it was useless with the Joker free, and what happens after Gordon is exposed alive? Joker manipulates Dent who captures his family. I mean it was exactly Gordon's fear in the first place. So I very much understand that plot point, and I think those who don't or can't are (respectfully) thinking a bit too much into it.
Exactly... as far as we know. According to the Joker, he and the Batman are staged to do this forever. I think that's one of the reasons why a third film might invalidate The Dark Knight a little bit because I would like to think that after the closing events of the film the Batman has to occasionally deal with the Joker nonstop from hereon. Now, literally showing that isn't required, since it is basically an allusion to the comics where the Joker is and will always be a constant threat to the Batman, so I liked that approach, but I get where you're coming from. After all of the elaborate set-ups and everything the Joker is a bit easy to capture at the end, but with the Joker you can never know for sure. I have a feeling if he wanted to elude the police's capture after the events of The Dark Knight he simply could.
There was every reason for this to happen. As the film explains, Batman didn't want Gotham to lose hope. Dent was this bright light, this beacon of hope, and the revelation of his true intentions would have destroyed his public image and Gotham's spirit. Batman was trying to salvage Gotham's spirit in The Dark Knight. It was the metaphorical MacGuffin that the Joker was after since the beginning of the film. He was trying to show that "once the chips are down, people will eat each other". Batman was the very opposition of that. Anything that could destroy the spiritual integrity of Gotham was something Batman wanted to avoid.
Batman taking the blame does bring it all back to Batman, and furthermore, makes him the vigilante he was destined to be since the first movie. It ties everything together. It might have been easily to blame the Joker. I grant you that.
I thought Lucius had a decent role. Alfred's role was indeed minimized, but with new additions to the cast and an expanding universe of characters and storylines that is to be expected.
You raise some very good points. Not everyone will like The Dark Knight. I loved it, but every film has its detractors.
J
Jetfire
Guest
^
I read that Jared Leto wants to be The Riddler in the next film...how much of this is true???
I have this fear that the 3rd Batman movie could be on this list.
I would be ok with Leto as The Riddler...just don't want to see these films head down the road the 90's movies went.
I read that Jared Leto wants to be The Riddler in the next film...how much of this is true???
I have this fear that the 3rd Batman movie could be on this list.
I would be ok with Leto as The Riddler...just don't want to see these films head down the road the 90's movies went.
All casting rumors for a third Batman film should be taken with a huge shaker of salt.
Also I remember leaving the theater very much disappointed by Star Trek Nemesis and X-Men: The Last Stand. Both movies I was waiting for a while and I left disheartened.
Also I remember leaving the theater very much disappointed by Star Trek Nemesis and X-Men: The Last Stand. Both movies I was waiting for a while and I left disheartened.
The Superman film released in 2006 with Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor.
I must be the only person in the world who wasn't disappointed by "Nemesis". I was just so happy to see a TNG movie on the big screen (probably the first and last time I'll ever have that thrill 
) that I just didn't mind anything about it. The only thing that disappointed me was the lack of a funeral or reminiscing conversations at the end like in "The Wrath of Khan". Just one little whine from Troi. There should have been more. You would expect there to be if something like that had happened on the show.
"Superman Returns", "Spider-Man 3", and "X-Men: The Last Stand" were the biggest disappointments for me. I was really expecting or hoping for greatness since "Superman Returns" was supposedly a sort of sequel to "Superman II" (which I love), I thought "Spider-Man 2" was in many ways an improvement from "Spider-Man" but far from perfect, which would lead to a much closer to perfect sequel as the series just kept getting better and better, and of course for me "X2: X-Men United" was and still is the peak/pinnacle/zeigeist of the current superhero movie renaissance. Because of those movies, I'm not going to sequels anymore without checking on the general consensus first. That's why I still haven't (and may never see) "The Matrix Revolutions".
I agree there are a lot problems with the storytelling in "The Dark Knight", but that movie is just so beautifully shot and The Joker's dialog is so captivating that it's easy for me to get absorbed in the movie without letting its flaws with overplotting and a few aesthetic missteps (i.e. Bale's horrible Batman voice) detract too much from the experience of watching it.
) that I just didn't mind anything about it. The only thing that disappointed me was the lack of a funeral or reminiscing conversations at the end like in "The Wrath of Khan". Just one little whine from Troi. There should have been more. You would expect there to be if something like that had happened on the show."Superman Returns", "Spider-Man 3", and "X-Men: The Last Stand" were the biggest disappointments for me. I was really expecting or hoping for greatness since "Superman Returns" was supposedly a sort of sequel to "Superman II" (which I love), I thought "Spider-Man 2" was in many ways an improvement from "Spider-Man" but far from perfect, which would lead to a much closer to perfect sequel as the series just kept getting better and better, and of course for me "X2: X-Men United" was and still is the peak/pinnacle/zeigeist of the current superhero movie renaissance. Because of those movies, I'm not going to sequels anymore without checking on the general consensus first. That's why I still haven't (and may never see) "The Matrix Revolutions".
I agree there are a lot problems with the storytelling in "The Dark Knight", but that movie is just so beautifully shot and The Joker's dialog is so captivating that it's easy for me to get absorbed in the movie without letting its flaws with overplotting and a few aesthetic missteps (i.e. Bale's horrible Batman voice) detract too much from the experience of watching it.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Every Star Trek since The Undiscovered Country.
Star Wars: Origins: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Origins: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
But considering he starts blaming Gordon and Batman (seemingly based on Joker's word [again something that makes no sense - Why is he even listening to Joker?!])...that's where goes from "Hmm...maybe" to "it makes no sense."
Which undercuts the realistic, naturalism of the film that Nolan claims he was going after, especially after the pains they went through in Batman Begins to present this fictional world the way it is.
I understand why he did it. But the logical flow of the story in relation to how it went down made no sense.
Here is my philosophy on plot holes in movies. If you are watching a movie and you are totally into it and don't realize the plot holes until after you finish with the movie and you start to think about it (perhaps even too much), then the movie did a good job at covering itself. On the other hand, if you are watching a movie and spot the plot holes as they happen, then the movie failed in that regard. For me in this instance, TDK was the latter.
Considering that Nolan has stated time and again that the story he wanted to tell is done (at least until he makes a Batman 3...maybe), this was how he intended on Joker to be defeated and his storyline to be resolved.
I suppose he could bring Joker back in a future movie for a more permanent defeat, but given the death of Heath Ledger, I find this to be very unlikely.
In any case, for this film, it was still anti-climatic.
It still made no sense. How does Batman being an outlaw hunted by the cops help Gotham? Dent was the "good guy" for Gotham. Anyone could have taken the blame for Dent's misdeeds and Dent's image would have still been clean.
Yes, as I said, it isn't necessarily a fault of TDK as a film.
Thank you. That explains better than I could why I still enjoy watching the movie any time I do, even though I'm increasingly more aware of plot holes than I was after my first viewing.
Which is totally the opposite of my reaction to the movie, most of the time. There are still times when I feel like yelling, "get on with it", though.
Ah, okay, cheers. I haven't seen it.
I must be the only person around here who likes the SW prequels. Alas!
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Phantom Menace
King Kong
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 3
King Kong
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 3
Similar threads
- Locked
