I’ve heard some stuff. Maybe not a testament to the general consensus, and certainly not thought-out, but I’ve encountered similar versions of this mindset more than a few times, and would like to give the retards who possess it the attention that they deserve.
Here’s an example instead of an explanation of what I’m talking about (from some message board):
Heath Ledger is Overrated
Why on earth is Ledger getting so much praise? before he was dead, no one was talking about this guy. even once the dark knight was announced and we all knew he was playing the joker, everyone said, ‘jack nicholson is the only joker’. but then once he died, before the movie was released, they said this was the ‘performance of the year’ and nonsense along those lines.
The word overrated is itself: overrated. Any use at all is abuse, and you’re a mindless chump. About every time, this word is used when describing something of artistic merit (or alleged merit, I guess, with which the critic evidently disagrees), rendering its application entirely useless.
Saying the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ is overrated is to say that the role (two things: the creativity that went into its design, and the skill required to play it the way Heath Ledger played it) isn’t worthy of the received praise. For everybody who’s made something like this statement, or at least agrees with it: (a) you’re a moron, and (b) you’re a moron who can’t see that this is an entirely impossible and purposeless point to try for. There exists NO translation of ‘technical difficulty and invested effort’ to ‘merit of the end result,’ and all you’re essentially saying is, “I do not like the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ as much as some other people do.” And that makes you a liar in the first place, but more importantly, you never notice this distinction, and associate your “overrated” statements with a person who has an opinion (e.g. YOU); you make the claim and offer your words as fact, as having some application outside of your own skull. You’re wrong. Shutup.
But let’s have a review (hint: it’s my opinion). Dig this…
‘The Dark Knight’ is piggybacked by its lead villain. Marketed and anticipated through the Joker’s role, and he’s the remaining impression after it all. Every discussion concerning ‘The Dark Knight’ as a whole doesn’t merely include The Joker; it probably surrounds him entirely. Be it amazement, or some asshole liar saying how “overrated” the character is, the Joker, by himself, decides and dictates impressions of the entire film. And it is not necessarily a bad thing that the villain in any movie receives a lot of attention, but it absolutely is a bad thing that the villain (or any one role in a movie that tries to feature many significant roles) overshadows and distracts from the movie itself. And that’s exactly what’s going on here: with ‘Dark Knight,’ you find yourself sincerely rooting for the Joker to win, and when he isn’t on-screen, you’re waiting.
‘The Dark Knight’ is not a bad movie otherwise; it’s okay. My point is that the Joker distracts you from a lot of the otherwise (this movie’s title should be his name). The plot is about average, on par with the caliber of an okay action movie. And make no mistake; that’s what ‘Dark Knight’ essentially is: an okay action movie. It is NOT a superhero movie. There is no epic plot or even super powers. Nothing of the setting seems even slightly fictional or at all contrived. You do not watch ‘Dark Knight’ and feel like an onlooker and outside observer of unreal characters existing in an unreal setting, Gotham City; you feel like you’re watching mostly believable characters existing in present day New York or some other huge urban city you’ve been to or know about. Even Batman himself seems much more like a cop than a superhero, like he’d be more appropriate fighting crime outside of the cape and mask. Superheroes are supposed to slap-down common criminals en route to the big-time villain, and jet from the scene before the cops cuff the crippled and wounded bad guys. What’s supposed to happen is, the cops are losing in some shootout or are unable to catch somebody, and then, “Batman to the rescue!” But In ‘Dark Knight,’ Batman works beside and directly with the cops all the time, thus seeming like a direct report of Gordon, and just a really good cop himself.
Batman is no superhero in this movie.
Further, Bruce Wayne is no Batman in this movie. Instead of the expected, a superhero and his alter ego, two separate people exist. There are two entirely detached entities. The egocentric and chauvinistic nature of Bruce Wayne in ‘Dark Knight’ hugely conflicts with the selflessness and overall attitude towards people and society required to be Batman (or any superhero, since I guess Batman is at least supposed to be one of those). Bruce Wayne and Batman aren’t even similar in this movie. And some might argue that this conflict of identities is accounted for, and represented by the debate Batman faces as to whether he should just retire and give up. Somebody might say, “It’s true; Batman doesn’t have the mind to be a hero, and that exactly is why he thinks about giving up on the whole gig.” And that’s fine, BUT the situation is not presented to us in this manner. Any talk of Batman giving up is due to his realization that he might be causing more harm than good; Batman considers retiring with the people’s best interest in mind and at heart, and his demeanor conflicts with Bruce Wayne’s dickheadedness and ego just the same (cue the spotlight on Bruce as he shows up at a charity that’s in somebody else’s honor, in a private jet, with really, really hot sluts). Bruce is an asshole when his mask is off and he isn’t Batman, and here is the personality that his name should’ve existed through:
(Matter of fact, I’ll take an entire actor swap. Is there actually even any dispute as to who has the better Batman chin?)
Politician, Harvey Dent. And he is the man. Sleek. Charismatic. Charming. Determined. Really.
Throughout ‘Dark Knight,’ there exists some huge discrepancies inside Rachel’s (Bruce’s woman) head, as to who she wants to be with, Bruce or Harvey. And I’m really left wondering what any of the confusion is about. Rachel eventually reveals her intent to be with Harvey rather than Bruce, but even so, there is an outward expression of all kinds of uncertainty until then, and it should’ve been a no-contest from the start. I think what I’m trying to say is this: I’m glad Rachel dies in this move. (Spoiler alert.)
A breakdown:
- Heath Ledger’s Joker is great, unlike anything you’ve seen. Harvey Dent is owed a second place trophy as far as characters are concerned, and the movie would’ve truly been improved considerably, had (a) a personality much like Harvey’s been adopted for Bruce Wayne, and (b) Aaron Eckhart played the God damn part. The Batman you get instead is just alright, and unarguably contradicting, both with his unmasked alter ego, and what is expected in a superhero. Rachel flat-out sucks. Other characters are just right: Gordon is a good cop. Alfred is wise. Morgan Freeman is number one in all our hearts (in ‘Dark Knight,’ he’s an inventor and a bad ass called Lucius Fox, but I prefer to call him Morgan Freeman in all of his roles).
- The story is what’s expected: Mayhem and destruction, and something needs to be done about it.
- A certain burn victim towards the end of the movie is fucked more because of CGI than the actual fire, but the movie has mostly great visuals (was incredible in IMAX). The sound is…well, whatever. ‘Hero’ by Nickelback wasn’t featured during the end credits, so it’s all good.
Overall, ‘The Dark Knight’ is worth checking out. Okay storyline (good amount of ass-beatings and stuff blowing up, at any rate). Hot chicks and Christian Bale/Aaron Eckhart (depending on your fancy). And, as I’ve made painfully obvious by now, the Joker is unreal (and absolutely deserving of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor he’ll probably win in three days, as well as the awards he’s already won).
7.4 out of 10
Recent Comments