The Dark Knight is Confused

Jim-

You and I, it seems, are not alone.

Amusing video, Jim. But if the makers of the video are actually at a loss to explain some of the plot points they mention, then they clearly weren't paying attention, or have the very flaws in logical reasoning they accuse the film of having. (They really think that having an armored car would be the [un]ethical equivalent of spying on millions of people? Really? And that's the least of the video's problematic logic.)

But anyway, it was amusing. The rhymes and voice imitations were the most impressive aspects - but as for actual commentary on the film, surely they could have done better.

Hilarious.

Love "The Hurt Locker" shout out.

Alright, Jim, you win. It does make no sense.

Heath Ledger's Joker was the best anything I saw this decade though. He held the movie together on an emotional if not logical level. (The King Kong Effect, like I've said here before.)

I was watching "The Crow" on TV a couple months back (I think it was Halloween night) and I started to see what you meant about how Nolan didn't really know what to do with The Joker from a visual standpoint. The way we're slowly introduced to Brandon Lee's Crow is much more disturbing. Pains me to say but Christopher Nolan 's movies are a little plagued by pseudo-intellectualism. Alex Proyas has style to burn.

Barely Political is always genius

Now THAT was funny! I'll admit that I loved TDK when it first came out and I still watch it from time to time, but peeling back the layers on it have revealed several troubling aspects. Oh well, Batman Begins was better anyway, I always thought...

Great vocal impersonations.

Not to play the "nerd" role here but...

He had to take the rap for dent because criminals were suspecting that batman wasn't a scary madman who would tear apart criminals and eat their entrails. Falcone tells batman at the end of the film that words gotten around that he has a "code" (referring to his decision to abstain for murder). This would defeat batman's ability to get the job done.

Superman can fly, see through walls, lift a train, and shoot lasers out of his eyes. He has so much power that he can afford to set a good example. He can be the boy scout.

Batman is human. He only has one weapon...fear. Without it he is useless.

That was surprisingly excellent. And it also reminds me that Batman Begins had a couple of logical lapses of its own, particularly the "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" cop out. I'm pretty sure that's the superhero equivalent of "I'm going to swing my arms around and walk forward, and if you happen to be in the way and I hit you, that's your fault."

Haha that was spot on! In response to Chris's complaint about the comparison between the armored car and spying on people, I think they got it right in the video. I mean, Fox is ok with letting Batman ride around in the city in a super tank which causes massive destruction and kills (hypothetically, I mean in Batman Begins he blew up a few cop cars if I remember right), but he's not ok with spying because it's unethical? That's some flawed logic. Good critique of the Joker too, who was played brilliantly by Ledger but who had way way way too many intricate plans for it to be remotely plausible.

They were still confused about why Batman took the blame for killing those people? Wow, and I thought the film spent too MUCH time explaining that point. I guess some people need everything spelled out for them multiple times.

JE: Well, as I got slammed for saying, that was my problem with the film: It just isn't very cinematic. Lots of cool pictures, but the over-written dialog still has to carry almost all the narrative/thematic/emotional weight.

How is Batman saying "I won't save you" a cop-out? He has one rule - he won't kill anyone. Liam Neeson got himself into his own mess last time. However, in TDK, he can't let a certain someone fall because he pushed him/her. It would've been his direct fault this time.

As a couple people said, I don't see the flaws the video tries to make. Harvey Dent was the true symbol of hope for the city. While Batman was catching criminals with vigilante justice, something that was necessary but not ideal, Dent was correcting Gotham the way it should have been, through law. If the people knew Dent went all Two Face on everyone, any thoughts of "Dent was right, we can be good people and still handle these criminals" would be gone. Their spirits would be crushed knowing that even someone as pure as Dent could do something so wrong. Batman, on the other hand, has been impure from the start. Ya know, the whole "Dark Knight" thing.

Some of the questions don't make sense to me, or it doesn't make sense how someone is confused. I'm with Chris on this one.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!

1) Why is Batman taking the blame? Because Harvey Dent was the best thing going for the city. He was basically Gotham's Obama. It was better a costume wearing vigilante falls than a biblical fall from Grace. It would be like finding out Mother Theresa is a serial killer.

2) Why did Batman forget about Rachel? He didn't...he still loves her and wanted her to dump Harvey. You see him struggle with this quite a bit through the first half of the movie.

3) Why does Harvey go 180? Umm....he lost Rachel and half his face. He basically has gone mad and The Joker has pressed his madness upon him that nothing really matters and all his rules are meaningless. He does that similarly with Harley Quinn so its very consistent with his origin. Whats the terms for when a crazy person can make someone else crazy?

4) How is Batman not a hero, but just a guardian? What they are saying is Batman commits the ultimate sacrifice. He lets himself be considered a common criminal because he truly believes its in Gotham's best interest. For that reason, he isn't seen as just a hero. Gordon knows he transcends the definition of a hero.

5) The Joker's men seem expandable, but reliable? He usually works with psychos from Arkham, people desperately wanting a leader I think and he fits that role. Additionally, recall in the movie when Falcone says "nobody's gonna turn him in for you. We got rules. This Joker, he's got no rules." Does anybody want to dare cross this guy? And many times, his pawns don't even know whats going on. Recall the guy that had an explosion in his stomach. He probably had no idea what was going on. Similarly, he killed of the bank robbers in the beginning just for fun.

6) Why is Morgan Freeman pissed about spying on people? There is a huge difference between a guy using an armor plated car to protect himself from gun fire and Batman trampling on people's privacy. The ability to listen to what anyone is saying...that is truly dangerous.

7) Where did the joker get the time to strap on bombs? One of his henchmen might have done it. Also, he might have taken his makeup off in which nobody can really recognize him. I like that element of mystery. You don't know what or how he does the things he does, but they are never completely outside the boundaries of reasonableness. This movie really made me believe a terrorist could do this.

I think there is a mildly valid point that the dialogue is a bit too "spot on." However, its not nearly as bad as the first movie in which the problem was ten times worse. Batman Begins also felt like using the word "fear" every 5 seconds. Furthermore, I am convinced due to the writing and characterization, each sentence coming out of the actors doesn't feel too artificial. Given the conversations I've gotten into with people over ethics and other topics, things used to sound cliche in movies are actually closer to reality than I once thought.

Similarly, I disagree that the movie isn't cinematic. While I still agree Nolan could still back some of the dialogue off a tiny bit, I think there is a lot of great spectacle here. The movie never explicitly mentions that The Joker lied about the location of Harvey and Rachel, but I gathered it was one of his bad jokes. There's the image of how the coin had two sides, the blowing up of a judge's car, and a very disturbing video of a fake batman tied up. I forgot to mention the beginning where you see all those fake batmans running around. It took me a second viewing to understand that.

Yes, Jim, we know you despise The Dark Knight.

I think Chris hit the nail on the head, so I need not say more.

This Calvin and Hobbes strip sums it up: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/07/22/

No matter how serious a comic boo-er graphic novel- on page or screen tries to be, ultimately they're comic. The "realism" of The Dark Knight is just a stylization to make it up to date, because these days people seem to like a more literal photorealistic Gotham over Tim Burton's comic book world Gotham. But both are fantasies about guys in costumes with cartoon names, but IMO the latter is more fun and less pretentious.

One of the plot holes in the movie that always got to me, that they don't mention here, was when Two-Face deliberately shoots the driver of the car he's in, setting up an accident to kill the other passenger, all while he's still in the car and apparently counting that he'll not only survive the crash, but be able to walk away completely uninjured (never mind that he ought to be in debilitating pain from his untreated third degree burns ).

I want to defend the Joker's seeming unstoppableness, because that's a complaint I hear so often. "How does this one guy do all that? All by himself, or with just a few nutjobs for help?"

It wasn't just him, not even close. The Joker had every mafia family in the city behind him! And half the police were corrupt and working for them too! The police were so corrupt that Harvey and Rachel couldn't even get a ride home in police cruisers without both of them getting kidnapped! The police were so corrupt they couldn't trust anyone, even the "good ones" working with Gordon. And all of this being controlled by the mafia, which in turn was taking orders from the Joker, because of that deal they made with him in the beginning.

So no, it wasn't just the Joker. He had basically half the city working for him.

I'm glad to finally get that off of my chest. The next time someone says that, set them straight. Gotham itself was the real villain of The Dark Knight.

Do you think that if people stop saying that they liked TDK, Jim will stop making posts about it/bringing it up?

It's certainly worth a shot, because I dunno about you guys but I'm a bit sick of hearing about how much Jim disliked TDK.

The video is kind of, sort of, almost amusing in a tries-too-hard way but I'm with Chris and Tom. I especially agree with Tom on the movie being more cinematic than you're giving it credit for, and I find that dismissing it as "lots of cool pictures" is exactly the kind of tone that rubbed people the wrong way in your original TDK posts.

Hello again -

Since this is now officially a discussion, I'd like to expand a bit on what I said about the video's confused logic.

Joe: No, the armored car/spying argument still doesn't hold any water. Whatsoever. He wasn't going around killing people in the thing, even accidentally. He wasn't taking the car out joyriding and randomly bombing gangster hideouts. Every time he used it, he was engaged in a legitimate fight against an actual threat either to himself and/or others. I think the only possible evidence against the use of the car is a couple of police cruisers (with officers inside) that get wrecked at high speed in Batman Begins - but then again, that film explicitly told us that pretty much all the cops on the force were essentially arms of the gangster underworld, so it's not like we're talking about innocent civilians here.

Saying that he's committing some major ethical travesty equivalent to spying on millions of innocent people is absurd - really, his armored car is no different than cops carrying guns when [most of] the rest of the populous isn't, or cops going 95 mph on the highway if they're chasing a violent criminal. It's a calculated risk undertaken only when engaged with a criminal element. It doesn't infringe on the rights of millions of people.

The most you could say about the Batmobile is that Batman is guilty of violating traffic laws and property damage (what with smashing through the highway median and tearing up a roof or two), but I'm sure he can cover the costs. How, then, is his limited use of an armored car that hasn't done any innocent people harm equivalent to illegally spying on everyone in Gotham?

But maybe that's beside the point - the issue is Lucius Fox, right? As everyone does, he has his ethical/moral line - the spying crosses it. He's OK with Batman operating outside the law if he is doing so only against criminals themselves - and even then, it seems, only because the law itself and the entire infrastructure of Gotham are corrupt.

But operating outside the law against innocent, unassuming people, stripping them of their civil rights, is an entirely different matter. I don't see how anyone can consider Fox's ethical standard implausible. If you disagree with it, that's one thing. But implausible? Absolutely not. In fact, I'd argue that there are many, many people who would have the same exact ethical line.

Now, as for the Joker's henchmen. The above video oddly insists that in TDK, the Joker's men are presented as "reliable." NEVER does the film make that claim. It's clear that he uses random henchmen, not a team of loyalists who are in on his grand schemes. Sometimes (maybe always), he kills them after they've done a job (i.e. the bank heist). It is made explicitly clear that he uses A) hired thugs; and B) schizophrenics who can take simple orders but who don't have the capacity to infringe upon or subvert the Joker's operation.

Third - the ending. Yeah, as Tom and others have pointed out, the film's own reasoning and logic about the end is made so explicitly clear (too clear, some have said) that I'm baffled how anyone (like the makers of the video) could somehow be confused by it, or not understand the purpose and the significance behind it. Whether you think it's well executed cinematically is another argument, but the idea behind and explanation of the ending make perfect sense. Not much more needs to be said - all those who claim it doesn't make sense, well, I don't really know what else I can say. It's like arguing with a Creationist.

And that "how did he get the time to set up those bombs" question? Give me a break. What an inane question/argument. It's not like we're kept aware of his whereabouts 24 hours a day - he could have done it any time. Unless the setting up of the bombs actually conflicted with the timeline the film presents or with the Joker's whereabouts and/or actions during the timeline, it's an irrelevant question.

Finally, since no one else has brought it up, let me also make the point that Harvey most certainly did NOT do a 180. Maybe a 90, maybe even a 100, but not a 180. The film makes very clear that Harvey has always had the capacity to tow the line, morally - that's made clear by his deep adoration for Batman's methods (a clear desire to be able to BE Batman, or more like him, at least) and, most explicitly, in the gun-to-the-head scene with the schizophrenic. Obviously, one of the film's central focuses is the mirroring of Harvey and Bruce/Batman - and it becomes clear that Harvey absolutely has something of a predisposition for vigilantism, rage, violence, law-breaking, what have you, even if he hasn't acted on it. Rachel's death and his own accident - and, to a lesser extent, the Joker's nudging - are enough to turn him completely over to the dark side (for lack of a better term), but his soul (like Bruce's) has always towed the line to some extent. The public of Gotham may not know that (which is why he still can be, and must be, their symbol of hope, etc), but at a certain point it becomes clear to others (namely Bruce) and definitely becomes clear to the audience.

Unless, of course, you're the makers of that video, in which case it somehow didn't become clear to you at all.

I don't know, I think it's kind of funny how some argue that everything in TDK was over-explained to death and back, while others argue that things were hardly explained at all and thus it was all somehow terribly confusing. And these two groups of people seem to think they are in agreement with one another.

I wasn't very impressed with TDK either. It had some good cinematic moments, but was also a HUGE MESS. I mean what a convoluted mess. How could there not be multiple plot holes in a movie like that (Dan noted one of my favorites). Hoping for a better sequel, maybe Nolan should go after all...

The best thing about TDK is that it has gotten people discussing all the moral issues that it raised. That's the only positive thing about it. The way it actually went about the story, characterization and logic was a confusing mess (I say this having seen it twice, and despite the fact that Ledger's performance was marvelous).

Loved the video. I think the mere fact that the dissenters are spending so much time and verbiage explaining everything says quite a bit right there.

To the defenses of the film...

Just because the movie provides an excuse or covers its bases, doesn't mean it credibly makes sense. All the 'logic' in this film is over the top. It's not realistic, it just provides a (shaky) framework.

My take on the film is I like what it's going for , the characters affect me emotionally (and are performed terrifically) and there are enough "cool pictures" as Jim says -- Dent draped in noir shadows at the climax, Joker hanging up side down yet right side up, his head out of the car like a dog catching fresh air, the wind-up doll hospital exit, the eerie shot of a fire truck on fire as well as a chilling sound moment where the sound is turned down right before the car chase -- that I'm willing to work with its explanations of how this, that and the other thing happens. In that sense, the final speech of the movie should be very personal to "TDK" fans who have had to lie to themselves throughout in order to salvage the good in the film.

I understand how others feel very differently.

Mother Theresa was a serial killer?!

The real enduring mystery surrounding TDK is how such an ugly, graceless thing suckered so many.

Jim, there can never be enough posts about how terrible TDK is. It might not be the worst film of the decade but it is the blockbuster most inimical to cinema. The film's high crime isn't that it makes no sense, but that it is uncinematic, pure bad television. Just as anti-war protesters should cease their efforts only when the troops come home, you should stop jabbing at this monster only when Warner Brothers stops advertising it.

Couple things.

Jeremy, you have no clue what you're talking about. Okay? Not. One. Clue. If you want to kill this new Batman series, then yes, by all means remove Nolan from the picture. It's not like Joel Schumacher has anything better to do.

And Jim...how many anti-Dark Knight posts are we gonna hear from you? Is this going to be an perennial provocation you break out just to stir up a little controversy when things are quiet? The film makes complete sense when taken within the world it has created. Don't take my word for it. Read Tom's post above, as it hits every point the (admittedly very funny) video tries to make. Read opinions of the film by major, intelligent critics like Lawrence Toppman, Michael Phillips, James Berardinelli, Manohla Dargis, even--gasp--Roger Ebert. The film absolutely works and is very, very cinematic, despite every effort you make to try to convince us it does not. We're not drinking the water, Jim.

Mainly I'm just pissed you worked up a response out of me!

JE: Posting a funny, affectionate parody of a year-and-a-half-old movie gets you all worked up? Why?

Hey Jim, can I please have the name of your favorite movie and ill nit pick it for ya.

JE: It's "Chinatown." And it's already been done in plenty of funny video parodies, notably Johnny La Rue's "Polynesiantown" on "SCTV." What's funniest (or saddest?) about the responses here is that so few seem to appreciate the humor in this "TDK" parody.

Absolute best line: "We're all alone, you don't have to use that voice." Hee!

I liked TDK and I agree that some of this video's criticisms don't work--mostly the Lucius Fox thing, because it seems clear to me that designing weapons for an apparently (to Lucius) honourable-to-a-fault vigilante, even if objectively very dangerous, might not set off alarm bells the way spying on the entire city would. But the parody does have a point, in that pat psychological explanations are all over the film to try and explain sudden character shifts that are maybe not explicable in terms of human behaviour. "Why did Dent to a complete 180?" "He got his face burned, and he lost his lady." The parody acknowledges the film's explanation, but it's somewhat dismissive of it, because maybe it's just not fully sufficient. That brings up Karlos' point--the movie keeps doubling back on itself to explain away why it's doing what it's doing, whereas if the film had tried to structure itself so that character choices made immediate emotional sense it wouldn't have to work so hard to sell itself.

(Oh, I do agree with the earlier commenter that it's not a total 180 for punching-out-witnesses, threatening-to-shoot-gangsters Dent; still, even the 90 that happens is pretty extreme, especially the explanation for the coin obsession which is, in reality, pretty hard to ground in a realistic character, especially as a result of one big event.)

I found that this parody was made with love for the finished film. Snarky love, but still real love.

I laughed at the video, it was very well done and the actors in it were funny. The one question that really bugged me was about Joker's "evil day planner."

Think about the Joker/Dent scene, when Ledger is dressed as a nurse and talking about "chaos, chaos." The Joker is just talking him up; Dent is the DA, he knows full well about all the planning that's gone into The Joker's work. He knows The Joker is lying. It's his choice to follow what he says. That's what the movie is about, and it's underneath every scene - for me, anyway.

JE: I think that's a good point. The plot is full of unlikely coincidences and unexplained set-ups (as I detailed in my accounts of the opening bank robbery) -- but, as people kept telling me, it's a comic-book movie so anything can happen. There's an argument to be made that if the movie doesn't explain it, then the movie isn't concerned with it and neither should you be. That doesn't mean things won't bug you if they bug you (Lucius's behavior seems arbitrary and capricious to me; even though he explains his moral qualms quite clearly, I'm not convinced even he believes what he's saying; I guess Morgan Freeman isn't a good enough actor to pull off this one!) -- but I suppose all that goes with the territory. But back to this video: Has nobody noticed that Arthur Alfred offers ripostes to most of Batman's plot problems?

I liked TDK. It came closer than most movies to capturing what I love about comics but it did have substantial lapses of narrative and style. And it could have been shorter. Thanks for posting the video Jim - it pointed out some of the more egregious lapses with a delightful and succinct wit.

Damned shame so many people still won't tolerate anything less than reverence for TDK, it's a movie, not a way of life.

Jim,

I (think) that I appreciate the humor in this video, and I realize that it's affectionate, but it just doesn't do much for me. I think its the costumes of the actors: they remind me of the Friedberg/Seltzer "___ Movie" (as in "Epic Movie", "Date Movie", "Scary Movie") movie's. I think I would have laughed a lot more (and I did laugh!) if they had used stills from the film.

"Has nobody noticed that Arthur offers ripostes to most of Batman's plot problems?"

I think you mean Alfred, but yes, I did notice that. My favorite thing about the video is the quality and easy flow of the rhymes.

JE: Egads. I may be the first person ever to even momentarily confuse Michael Caine and Dudley Moore.

Chris,

You make a good argument and I can see where you're coming from.

I did have some other problems with the film, however.

1) I know the Joker has tons of criminals working for him, possibly even some corrupt police officers, but he is just way too powerful in this film. Every where at once to the point that it's implausible. I understand from a certain point of view I am missing the point of the Joker by focusing on the implausibility of his crimes (he has no rules, whereas Batman operates within a strict set of guidelines that he follows), but by the time he had blown up the hospital, planted a bomb in a man's stomach, blown up two ferrys, and orchestrated his own capture, I just couldn't buy it any more.

2)Someone already mentioned this, but when Harvey Dent shoots the man in the car, we are just left to assume that he knew he was going to walk away from the accident unharmed. Just lazy in my opinion.

3) During the bank heist at the beginning, which I actually loved until the very end, Joker plows out from the side of the bank in a school bus and we are just meant to take it for granted that he got away. I mean, he pulls out into the middle of traffic, in a school bus no less, and noone seems to notice. Don't you think the bus driver behind him might have noticed that a school bus driving from the side of the bank was a little conspicuous. I guess you could make the argument that the Joker hired henchman to drive the buses to help him blend in to get away, but if that's the case it should have been explained in the film, because otherwise it's just lazy filmmaking again.

4) After Batman jumps off the building to save a falling Rachel, we never cut back to the Joker in the middle of the party. We have already seen his henchman taken out, so it's virtually the Joker versus a room full of 50 or so people. Couldn't one of them have picked up a gun? I know he's the Joker, and yes Heath Ledger was amazing, but come on.

5) I agree that I'm not sure how anyone could really be confused by the ending, but I don't see that as a good thing, because they kind've beat it to death at the end.

I'm not saying it was a bad film, in fact it does have some very good moments, in particular the interrogation scene between Batman and the Joker. But while watching the film I couldn't help but second guess the plot every step of the way, which really got in the way of my enjoyment.

"I think the mere fact that the dissenters are spending so much time and verbiage explaining everything says quite a bit right there."

Well, they're supporting their points thoroughly with empirical evidence from the film...the very thing Jim encourages people to do on his blog.

"I don't know, I think it's kind of funny how some argue that everything in TDK was over-explained to death and back, while others argue that things were hardly explained at all and thus it was all somehow terribly confusing. And these two groups of people seem to think they are in agreement with one another."

Most precise, insightful comment I've read in this thread, thus far.

Jim, it's a funny clip, sort of a mid-level-quality SNL Digital Short. But as with most parodies, it occasionally plays dumb (with its own logic -- the armoured car/spying on millions of people connection being a notable example) for the sake of a laugh. Not the worst crime in the world. And I do indeed believe it's of an affectionate nature, by true fans of the film (otherwise, why go to all the trouble, particularly including ripostes to "plot problems"?).

That said, one does wonder why, given all the funny film parodies out there, you chose that one. Have none been created for your most loathed film of 2008 (Slumdog)? At this point, given the amount of (mostly negative, it seems) attention you've given TDK on this blog, you're probably just going to have to accept that in the future, any time you bring it up, people will question your motives. And, quite frankly, in this particular case, they wouldn't be totally out of line.

I come back to this blog, because in most cases, I find your commentary on film to be very precise and thoughtful: I simply enjoy your style of writing. As I noted months ago, I sort of felt that you got off to an unfortunate start with your TDK commentary, by adopting a snarky, condescending attitude ("if it had a script and a director", etc.), and focusing on extremely trivial aspects ("Dust particles"?) before perhaps moving on to more reasonable issues with the film. And what I believe occurred, to a great degree, is that by (quite frankly, tedious) over-saturation, you alienated a good number of readers/posters who quite enjoyed the film, who, in all likelihood, could've contributed greatly to future entries (about other films, topics), but instead simply chose to stop reading or contributing to the blog altogether. I'm, of course, not speaking of those given to shallow ad hominem attacks, but rather those out there who have generally good taste in film, and who also happen to be strong supporters of TDK, and have plenty of insightful and intelligent things to say about a variety of different topics. Alas, from all appearances, many of those folks seem to have moved on. Was "The Jim Emerson Greek Choir" the intended effect? I wonder if a few more TDK-related entries, covering the same ground over, and over, and over again, will send a few more individuals (Mr. Bellamy, Michael W., Tom, Nathan, T.Z., Adam, etc.) packing. Like-minded posters assemble! ;)

Anyways, I look forward to your comments on some of the more compelling artistic achievements of late 2009, assuming, in your eyes, there are some.

Cheers.

I had been a regular visitor to this site for quite a long time as I loved your insightful commentary on movies (my favorite: your No Country for Old Men articles). But then you started your tirade against TDK which quickly crossed the line of criticism and went into the territory of nitpicking and pure hatred. As the readers' anger poured in, you kept mentioning how rabid the TDK fans are. You kept asking the fans to post why they liked TDK even when they were already defending the movie in some of the most well-written comments. I noticed that you preferred to reply to comments of people who hated the movie. I still continued to visit this blog.
Then sometime this year, you made a comment that said Transformers 2 is this year's TDK. It was the tipping point for me. I stopped visiting this blog and didn't bother scrolling all the way down on Mr Ebert's site.
Few days back, I started visiting again to find, as always, some good posts. But again, you come up with this one. Now, if I am not wrong, you somewhere mentioned that you never cared for comic/superhero movies. Then, I don't understand, why do you keep coming back to hating TDK? And please don't ask why this little video is bothering me.

If you share the questions raised by this video about loopholes in the movie, then either you didn't watch the movie properly or I've to doubt your analytical powers. I am starting to think that you are a great critic of 'Made for Festivals' movies and not of anything else. I was right about my previous decision to stop following a critic who has a warped taste in movies.

JE: If the posting of this video was too much for you, then no doubt you made the right decision for yourself. I thought "TDK" was the top-grossing movie of the decade, a huge popular phenomenon. Why would anyone want to look back at it now, more than a year and a half after its initial theatrical release, I wonder?

JC's mentioning parodies of Slumdog Millionaire reminds me: I want to champion the season five Office finale, which had a pitch-perfect and in-character Slumdog Millionaire parody, which plays both as a typical portrayal of Michael's inability to get proper context for pop culture, and show up the film's own handling of its deliberate (but hackneyed, I'd argue) tonal shifts. They distilled the movie down to its crappy essence, and it comes off as a labour of love. (I have no idea whether that episode's writers Jennifer Celotta and Paul Lieberstein liked the movie or not, but I think the parody works whether or not an implicit criticism of the film was intended. Yay!)

I refuse to be drawn into this argument.

But can't we at least all agree that Rachel was a lot hotter in the first movie?

@MD: No, I can't agree with that. Katie Holmes' soulless expression, which almost but not quite resembles human emotion, places her firmly in the Uncanny Valley as far as I'm concerned.

@jim: Have you ever actually given any indication that you hate the Dark Knight, as so many people seem to infer?

From what I recall, you had many positive things to say about the film, even as you criticized it (i.e. the hospital explosion, how it treated Chicago as a character). You seemed more dissatisfied with the lack of spacial continuity than anything else, and spent more time "bashing" fan sensitivity about it.

Am I correct in thinking that you were mostly indifferent to the film?

JE: Thanks for asking, Matt! I gave up trying to get people to actually read what I said. No, I don't hate "TDK," and there are many things I liked about it but I did not find it particularly moving or exciting to watch. I soon learned, however, that's such distinctions are irrelevant to many people -- especially those who grew up in an era of false dilemmas, when you were supposed to be either "with US or with the terrorists." (So much for the kinds of distinctions "TDK" itself tries to make.) I'm supposed to be either "with 'TDK' or against it." What I actually had to say, the particular things I saw in the film that I appreciated or criticized... I found out that some "TDK" fans are so insecure and thin-skinned they just can't deal with anything but unchecked enthusiasm.

Jim, people are annoyed not because of some insecurity about a liking the movie, it is because you a dwelling on it. If you had some new insight this time that would be different, but you are posting a video with arguments that have already been retorted and debated all the other times this has been brought up. It's as if you made a post saying "hey by the way I still don't think The Dark Knight is a great movie." A year and a half is not time for everyone to forget about the movie but it's time for you to agree to disagree and move on. Other people think the movie is great. Stop dwelling and get over it.

JE: The video, which was sent to me by a reader, is new -- posted on YouTube December 6, 2009. I thought it was clever and funny and -- like the "Ambiguous Endings" and "Precious Moments" and "Eastwood vs. Pixar" videos I've recently posted -- was also practicing a form of film crit

Hehehe, pretty good video, the points made I don't particularly agree with, but a good laugh nonetheless.

I'm a lurker of your blog Jim, and although I ADORE TDK, not because it makes sense (though I think it does) or the fact I love the visual style, it's because I'm a sucker for long winded discussions concerning insanity and just general craziness. Heath's Joker, to me, is the best character in a movie maybe ever, he just gels with my likes. Daniel Day Lewis is close though, in quite a few of his movies.

And although I'm implying that I disagree with criticism of TDK, I could care less and actually enjoy it when people get readers riled up over a movie/game/artist/album, it never gets old to me. That subjective criticism is taken so seriously is hilarious imo. So beat a dead horse, hehe, if it gets people all hot and bothered then continue. Though I will say people's defense of TDK on this blog is pretty damn civilized, head over to Rotten Tomatoes and browse the reader comments on any negative Avatar review, wow, now that is some ridiculous fanboy lust for a movie.

But I don't know why, if it's only a once in a while disagreement with the critic's views, that a person would leave the site because of it, even if he brings it up fairly often. I'm a person that likes what I like and I don't care if another person says this or that in negativity about it, it doesn't bother me. So my question is this, and it's coming from a person that could watch TDK 100 times and never get bored, why do you guys care if Jim dislikes it? I'm in agreement with his views on most movies which is why I read his blog, a difference of opinion on one movie isn't enough to justify a fervent 'up in arms' mentality to me. I've just never understood how subjectivity can be taken so personally *shrugs*

Anyway, just wanted to post so I could say keep it up Jim, I'm finding the attacks against and defense of TDK hilarious :P

I am glad someone finally mentioned what I thought was the best line of the spoof:
Alfred: What about Miss Dawes, it seems you forgot her...
Batman: In 'Batman Begins' she was so much hotter'

I agree that Katie Holmes was terrible in "Batman Begins" but Maggie Gyllenhaal is just not as attractive...

Jim, you are more than onto something here about "The Dark Knight" and it being less than grand and the patina of all films. To go further than you, however, I think people misstep by missing Burton's fantastic two films.

For a director whose contribution is trying to one – up better films he borrows from, both Batman remakes are extremely shallow. Compare the death scene of Bruce Wayne’s parents between Burton’s nightmare to Nolan’s sloppy re-enactment. That alone speaks volumes about the inability for Nolan to be artistic, nuanced, or entertaining. He takes scenes from the original and attempts to make them more violent, more dark, but without directorial sensibilities. He follows blue-prints of others’ work (Erik Skjoldbjærg’s Insomnia) but can’t complete or finish on his own.

The other thing is Burton carries a double-burden by balancing dark subject matter with equally dark humor. That's a harder feat for one, but more, it doesn't turn the film into a Gothic, Hanekean viewing. Nicholson’s demand for his “face on the one-dollar bill” is such example. Nolan simply goes into overkill and can’t stomach such kinds of pun. He rather transfers energy to audience queasiness in explosions for the sake of explosions.

And even if you are into the uber-dark and austere, Burton's version of Batman fits more into that category anyway. When Batman introduces Vicki to his layer and says, "they're[Bats] great survivors," the audience learns that Wayne reels from losing his parents by being the crime-fighter. Nolan's version of Wayne overcoming a fear from a childhood fall doesn't mesh.