Spoiler Alert: If you haven't yet seen Dark Knight, you probably shouldn't read this thread.


So I was perusing the latest news on CBC's web site and saw a review of the new batman movie that I just had to share.  Most reviews are glowing, but here's someone who dares to diss the Dark Knight.  "... Nolan has sucked the magic out of the myth"

Amazingly, most of the points in the review are flat out wrong.  It made me wonder if the reviewer saw a different movie.

Here's the review: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2008/07/17/f-dark-knight-review.html

I am amazed it got published.  A little fact checking would have revealed:
1) At the beginning of the movie, criminals are on the run, not controlling Gotham.  That was the first movie.  Otherwise Batman would have been completely ineffectual in "cleaning up" the town.  They hire the Joker because they've got no other options.
2) The "Bat-Pod" was a motorcycle.. two wheels, not three.
3) "The Joker's only reason for being is for lack of reason"?  He stated his reason quite simply: To throw a little chaos at the schemers of the world.
4) "Batman should be fun, shouldn't it?"  Wow, totally missed the ball.
5) Imitation Batman's don't take over the city.  They exist.  I hardly call that "Taking Over"
6) Scarecrow is not an imitation Batman.  Did this reviewer watch a different movie?  Scarecrow was Scarecrow.  Batman just tied him up with the imitators.
7) Supposedly dropped subplots: Imitation Batmen (I think they'd be afraid to show their masks if Joker was killing Batmen for fun); Blackmailing Bruce Wayne (Blackmailer went on TV to spread his discovery!  Joker tried to have him killed!  Bruce Wayne saved him!  I think the guy might be a *little* appreciative and hold on to his secret); "incomprehensible" cell-phone sonar (Um, okay, it's tech stuff so it might be difficult to understand, but y'see, when the big computer blows up, it doesn't work any more.  End of subplot)
"There's not even garbage on the streets".  It's a cleaned up Gotham!  Crime is on the run!  Wow.. I guess Alfred wasn't clear enough when he said "You hammered them, sir.  You pushed them into unleashing someone they didn't understand".  Hmmm..  doesn't sound like the bad guys were winning the fight for Gotham.

None of this is "Batman Fanboy-ism".  I didn't pull any information from comics.  I don't care if comic movies mirror the paper story lines.  I just want an entertaining movie, and this totally was one.  I think this reviewer went in *wanting* to hate the movie, and tried desperately to find points to complain about.  Failing that, made up crap.

From what I read in the review, it sounds like the reviewer is the type who doesn't see the movie, because he's too busy looking for the metaphors.  Some movies can't be enjoyed unless you're living in the moment, and if you're always looking for a deeper meaning, you may not notice that 'that's just cool sh*t!'

If she had said things like:

1. I felt it was too dark in some places... visually and I couldn't see clearly.. or...
2. I felt two-face's turn implausible because he didn't rely on luck when he flipped the two headed coin when he was the prosecutor, but suddenly he's all about luck after his little play date with gasoline... or...
3. I felt my foot sticking to the floor and turned around to yell at the acne-riddled young punk with the sardonic grin to stop dumping his stale coke on the floor... and that ruined the 'moment' of the movie for me...

why then we'd have given her a nobel prize for writing... but... alas.... she just showed her ignorance...