Don't Want to Be All By Myself Anymore: Anyone Else Dislike The Dark Knight?

I’m putting this out there because I know there must be others like me and I want to stop feeling so alone in the world.

I didn’t like The Dark Knight.

I didn’t hate it. I’d give it a B-, a grade that most interpret as “average,” “underwhelmed,” or “unambitious.” But The Dark Knight was none of the things. It was ambitious, overwhelming, and wildly above-average in almost every area. And yet…

Let me quickly get to the business of separating the wheat from the chaff. We’ll start with the wheat: the acting throughout was unsurprisingly fantastic. Ledger was, as he was built up to be, a magnetic, exciting presence; everything he does is captivating, and I don’t mean every one of his actions. Every time he licks his lips or cocks a brow and even when he sits still, it sends a shiver of anticipation down your spine for what he’ll do next. Because he’s so good, it’s too easy to overlook other performances. Gyllenhaal brought class and dignity to Rachel Dawes and thank God she did; the script barely gave her anything to do, but you wouldn’t know it by watching Gyllenhaal. And Gary Oldman is the unsung hero of both of Nolan’s Batman films. He’s a believably heroic everyman who nicely walks the line between too gee-golly grateful or too wisely noble. (But gosh, he’s a dead ringer for Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad, huh?) And if I had actually liked the Harvey Dent storyline, I would probably be more enthusiastic about Eckhart’s performance. The man’s chimple usually works wonders. And Michael Caine has made Alfred integral to the emotional balance of everything. I will hate every future Alfred that is not Michael Caine.

(I still think Christian Bale is the least interesting actor making movies today, but I liked him so much in Rescue Dawn that I will let it all slide for now.)

And, you know, I rarely get to say this, but I’m calling it now. This film will, for sure, win Best Sound and Best Sound Editing at the Oscars. I saw it at the Vista, which is a pretty old theater (but with nice seats, a huge screen, and $6.50 tickets, suckas!) and it sounded amazing. Every grumble of the Batmobile, every shattering pane of glass, every exploding explosion: they all sounded crystal clear and startlingly real. The cinematography, too, was gorgeous—it ain’t easy to be that dark and that pretty—and the make-up, costume, and production design were all of the highest quality.

But then there’s the story. I think if you strip Ledger’s performance from this movie, you have a shockingly flimsy little franchise film that panders. And panders. And panders some more.

The Dark Knight hits upon an interesting theme, it just hits it with an wood bat. Eighty-four times. The dichotomy of good and evil—the argument for their very existence in a world of shifting perspectives—is worth exploring, especially in the world of Batman, “a vigilante” as the film calls him. I like the question the film poses initially: does the existence of a singular heroic individual, who works outside the law, breed an equal and opposite force? And what must a hero be willing to compromise? Sure, the shadows that Batman has always operated in are gray areas and, like so many heroes before him, he creates his own moral code, one that is always called into question by the public. But I didn’t need to see this take so many forms throughout the movie. In voiceover, in opening scenes, in expository scenes…so many of those 152 minutes were blantantly devoted to really making you think.

Speaking of numbers, here’s a word problem for you: if you have one boat full of ten thousand convicts—who have souls!—and one boat full of ten thousand innocent citizens—whose souls are always up for grabs!—and a bomb is strapped to each and both will go off at midnight unless one boat blows up the other, then at what point are you so f***ing sick of the theme of this movie???

So there’s one problem. Another, arguably larger problem, is that there was no need for this movie to be so long. It’s essentially 2, 2 ½ decent movies instead of one great movie. If they had held off on the Two-Face storyline and not given the Joker storyline 3 endings, the film could have been given more focus. And it could have been truly great. There are also several shots that are completely unnecessary and pander to the audience much in the way that fake Michael Bay script did. The kids in the car fake shooting? Cut it. The guy eating a sandwich right before Batman and Rachel land on his car? Cut it. Those are Brett Ratner shots, Christopher, and you’re so much better than that. (Remember when you made Memento? Remember how perfectly constructed and edited that was?) I was getting restless because unnecessary shots and unnecessary plot points kept the movie going when it could have so easily been a thrilling, chilling wham-bang 110 minutes.

And seriously, they’re just going to put the Joker in a holding cell when they get him? Even Paris Hilton gets put in solitary. I know it didn’t affect the story, but c’mon. And why give talent like Cillian Murphy a cameo and William Fichtner (underappreciated badass extraordinaire) only one scene? And why were all the bad guys minorities except for the really smart bad guy?

Anyone, out there, somewhere in the universe, want to make me feel less alone? Or am I totally alone? Chime in.