The Worst Review of The Dark Knight You'll See

Wait, someone can't actually write a negative review of this movie, right?
Some quotes from friends about the flick:
"Believe the hype. Dark Knight is as good as advertised." - Rob
"I would have the joker's sick, twisted, demented little babies." - David, err, Private Pierce
"I just had a two-hour orgasm." - Kyle
"I can honestly say right now that it's in my top 10 favorite movies of all-time, and that's saying something." - Kisubika
"I quit my job and dropped out of school so I could devote the rest of my life to masturbating to this movie." - Ryan Simmons

Okay, that last one was made up, but you get the idea. Some people really, really like this movie.

Here's the thing. I liked it, too. There's a lot to like. It's creative to the point that you know it wasn't written exclusively by the comic book people, it's hilarious (the Ledger hospital scene still makes me smile), stylistically it's close to perfection (this and this alone is why most people get so moist over it), it doesn't insult your intelligence, it doesn't parody itself, it's better than Iron Man which everyone loved, and, yeah, Ledger does a damn good job.

But there's a lot to hate, too. I liked the movie more than I didn't, but I feel obliged to bring people back to earth.

First, if Heath Ledger wins an Oscar for adopting a funny accent and licking his lips, the Oscars are dead to me. I'm sure people have won for less, but come on. He was absolutely great, the tics were great, but we're talking about the best supporting actor in the world for one year. Did you see No County For Old Men last year? Javier Bardem won best supporting actor for his Anton Chigurh character that was essentially a lunatic eerily similar to the joker sans make-up, scar and accent. If you take those three things away from Ledger, you don't get Bardem. It's not even close. Ledger gave the performance of his life, he was creative, believable, outside of his regular persona, interesting and just damn good, but he's no Bardem. Unless it's a very weak year for Oscar-type movies this year (and it might be), it can't go to Ledger. Don't forget that most of what we like about this character was scripted. Ledger didn't come up with the absolutely brilliant philosophy behind why the Joker does what he does. He just acted it. We'll talk more about this next January when your loins have stopped tingling.

Second, I don't like Katie Holmes, but why replace her with Maggie Gyllenhaal (sp?) if she improves the character in no way? It was a distraction. Katie Holmes was awful in Batman Begins and Maggie was awful in The Dark Knight. What makes it even more frustrating is that they are both beautiful women in real life who are uglied-up in these movies and then constantly shoved in our faces in a "look how hot she is!" manner.

Third, semi-spoiler alert. Skip to the next one if you haven't seen the movie. Anyways, did the male character that died at the end of the movie really need to die? Obviously he did for this plot line, but they were brewing such a great character for the next sequel! Argh!

Fourth, so let me get this straight... Batman, who clearly has superhuman instincts, has come up with an invention with the help of his Wayne Enterprises people that does submarine sonar anywhere at any time. WHY? He's Batman! He doesn't need an invention that technology tells us cannot exist! It's not like the Bat-suit where we know we'll get to that sort of protective body armor some day or the Batmobile which could probably be built today, it's a technology we have not developed and probably won't any time soon, given to a character, perhaps the only character, that doesn't need it. He uses it for effect one time (to see the people a floor above him). Every other time he didn't really need it.

Fifth, one of my favorite things about this movie is also one of my least favorite things. It's going to be difficult to talk about it without ruining the movie, but I really liked how they didn't force anything to happen in the plot just because Ledger died. I, however, didn't like the way they left that plot line hanging. A little too vague, but I prefer a little too vague to some lame ending done just because Ledger's not going to be able to film a sequel.

Sixth, big spoiler alert here, too. You can't show us a character dying at the hands of the villain and then bring them back to life a few scenes later without a full, detailed explanation. I don't mind movies having fake deaths, it's fine. It's just that we saw the Joker shoot him. Did he just pretend to be dead instead of wounded? That's the explanation? And since we're on spoiler alerts, I guess we can go ahead and assume that the two main characters that stayed dead in this movie will be back for round three. I'm sure we'll find out falls and burns aren't fatal in Gotham. In fact, this problem is the most glaring instance of my least favorite recurring issue: there were a lot of things in this movie that could've benefited by a longer explanation. I don't need to have every single thing spelled out for me, but why are we supposed to be okay with never knowing who Gordon's mole was? They semi-reveal it and then excuse that person? What? Rachel cheats on both guys and this is okay? Huh? Ballet dancers (who in real life are skinny and not top heavy) are the best Bruce Wayne can get? Really?

To conclude I say again: I loved the movie, I just want everyone to keep it in perspective. It's not the greatest thing to ever happen. It's not the best movie of the year (I have it at 2nd, scroll down to see my list from last week and mentally insert it there).

Rest In Peace, Heath. I underestimated you.