On DVD, The Dark Knight's Chances For an Oscar Go Down, IMO

[NashVegas]

I saw TDK when it first came out and it was entralling; Joker was fascinating and compelling.

BUT

Without the element of surprise, Joker loses his fascination and becomes just plain loathsome. It's still great, amazing acting on Heath Ledger's part, but it is so not the role that any actor should want as their career-defining legacy.

As for the overall film, without surprise it becomes less social commentary and more of an attempt to use social commentary as a cover story for a sadistic romp.

[JCMach1]

1. Heath Ledger saved a bad/mediocre movie PERIOD

and made it watchable... Subtract Ledger and you have one of the worst flops of the year.

If he doesn't win or get a nomination it will be because of this.

[NashVegas]

3. I Would't Call It Bad

If for no other reason than it did have me glued to my seat when I saw it in the theatre. I just think it's the most thoughtful slasher/action movie probably ever made.

But on DVD, in my living room where I can get up and walk away, I get up and walk away. I'm sure Ledger will get at least a nomination. It's great acting.

Maggie G's Rachel just freaking annoys me in this. She reminds me of a stereotypical Broadway secretary trying to get on the casting couch. "Oh, you're great, Harvey (pant, pant)." It's a relief to know she won't be back for the next one.

[Orrex]

9. I thought that 'Maggie G' was entirely unremarkable in the role

After Batman Begins, there was an avalanche of criticism about Holmes' performance, but I thought that she did just fine. Certainly no worse than Gyllenhaal in the same role.

Much of this is due so problems in the writing: Rachel Dawes comes across as an afterthought and is never convincing as a love interest for either of the two male characters.

[Symarip]

10. I thought the same thing when I saw Dark Knight

I don't think it's bad acting - it's the role. I didn't buy the Rachel character as a pivotal player in the plot.

[NashVegas]

11. I Thought Some of It Might Have Been (lack of) Direction

It was bad acting choices. I've seen other things Maggie G. was great in, but, for better or worse, Katie Holmes set the tone with Rachel and the difference was jarring.

[Symarip]

12. I think the role itself is unneccessary

I never got the feeling Wayne or Dent were emotionally invested in her and therefore, her death later in the film which was supposed to be some pivotal shift in the plot left me saying 'so what?'. I never saw Batman Begins so I'm basing this only on The Dark Knight. They could have completely written out the Rachel character and the film would have lost nothing.

[JCMach1]

18. Batman Begins was a better 'movie'

[Crazy Dave]

2. I haven't seen it but will

From what most of the people I know that have seen it they say, it's one and a half hours of special effects and some good acting by Heath Ledger and nothing else. A few can't even remember the actor's name that played Batman, Christian Bale.

[NashVegas]

5. LOL

They liked that much?

For what it is - and I will stick to "slasher/action movie" for now - it's fantastic. But I think a lot of people who wouldn't normally go see such a film will get sucked into this because of the hype and come out disappointed.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Pointless. Absolutely stupid and pointless.

Nothing but violence and threats. Nothing positive at all about it.

A complete downer. The kind of crap that I don't watch, because it is depressing as hell.

The only actors with a shred of dignity were Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman.

Heath Ledger's performance as a crazy man does not redeem this at all.

[NashVegas]

8. It Has Some Positives

It has some intellect to it. And Ledger was a sight.


It's funny, because last summer I felt very different and that the critics who were putting it down as too bleak were total wankers. Without surprise, I see their point.

[Symarip]

6. It's no Wanted

It tries though.

[NashVegas]

7. I Haven't Seen That Yet

Love James McAvoy, Jolie, not so much. I'll wait til it hits HBO, probably.

This weekend I have to get through In Bruges, Golden Compass, and Wall-E.

[leeroysphitz]

13. Save yourself some trouble and just watch Wall-E three times. n/t

[NashVegas]

14. LOL!

Great tip, but too late.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

17. I loved "The Golden Compass"......

Beautiful movie, and I really thought the story is top-notch. I'm kinda bummed as it seems they are not going to film the rest of "His Dark Materials" saga.

[Xipe Totec]

28. Loved the book, the movie was nyah.

[DS1]

15. Well in that case "The Passion of the Christ" better not have won anything

[CrownPrinceBandar]

16. They should have called it "The Joker"..........

Because the movie was more about him than The Batman.

[Writer]

19. "The Dark Knight" is bait for the cynical culture barons to bash what they see as "low-culture."

I think it was a brilliant piece of filmmaking though it will likely get snubbed due to the snobbish "no genre movies" rule.

Fuck that.

[NashVegas]

20. Define 'Low Culture'?

Because I'm not sure what you mean in this instance.

[Writer]

21. Low culture... a form of culture that doesn't elevate the human consciousness and provide an...

opportunity for greater enlightenment.

As opposed to "high culture" which, according to those few who have anointed themselves the deans of culture, does.

[NashVegas]

22. Okay ...

In that case, to criticize the Academy for passing over it for 'best picture,' if they should, would be like complaining that your pet rooster makes a lot of noise in the morning.

[Writer]

23. Because you don't believe the movie offers much in the way of quality, I suppose? n/t

[NashVegas]

24. I Think I Made It Clear In Other Posts

I don't believe it lacks qualities as a pure piece of film-making.

Just that snuff/slasher pics aren't what Oscars usually reward and, as I said elsewhere, once you remove the element of surprise that's basically what Dark Knight boils down to.

[Writer]

25. You think it's a slasher pic?

I don't think so. No more than Gladiator, which WON an academy award for Best Picture.

But it's crazy to debate what comes down to a matter of taste. I think the Academy discriminates, however, against large-grossing films.

[NashVegas]

26. It's Not That Far Off

Seriously. Just because it has a brain attached ... FYI, someone asked Frank Miller what he thought of TDK's Oscar chances:

"It looks right. It’s dark. It’s spooky. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten it was a Batman movie. He’s barely in it."

I agree they often discriminate against popular films at Oscar, but they did not in the cases of Titanic and, once all was said and done, LotR.

When all is said and done, the vote will be political, no matter what anyone says. If Hollywood feels pressured to vote for a hit and honor Ledger's memory by voting TDK best movie they will. If, upon watching their screeners, voters find themselves skipping through scenes or getting up to go to the bathroom, and are reminded of how bleak last year's winner was and think it'd be a bad idea to do that two years in a row, they won't.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Still pointless and stupid.

If I watched crap like that all the time I would be so depressed I would not be able to get out of bed.

Kind of like the Mark Rothko paintings at the Rothko Chapel. They are all dark --deep maroon, gray, black.
When I saw them I said "No wonder Mark Rothko shot himself!".


As Grace Slick sang in White Rabbit, "feed your head".

Doesn't bring any insight to what makes people violent, or anything psychological.

Waste of time.
TDK also tells us that women are interchangeable and expendable. Men are important; what they do is important because everyone in the movie is male except a minor character. The woman is killed, so she is disposable.

I hate sexist crap. :banghead:

[Xipe Totec]

29. This is Heath Ledger's last chance to get an Oscar

I think, just because of that, they'll give it to him.

Having said that, I do think his performance was Oscar worthy.