thepete.com
 “You got your classic super hero in my crappy advertising campaign!” “You got your crappy advertising campaign in my classic super hero!” “They don’t really taste very good together.” “No, they don’t.” |
First off, DK was very entertaining. So please, don’t get me wrong. I liked Heath Ledger’s interpretation of the Joker quite a bit. Christian Bale is always great as Bruce Wayne and Batman, and frankly, he’s perfect casting for both characters. Aaron Eckhart was pretty solid as Harvey Dent and Maggie Gyllenhaal did a good job of taking over for Mrs. Tom Cruise. Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are always good, so let’s just move on.
I won’t go into the things that I thought were good because everyone else is talking about those and I generally agree with what others like about the movie.
Here’s where this post gets a little spoilerific, so read on with care (it’s also REALLY long).
1) What’s the plot of DK? Give it to me in one or two sentences. Here’s as close as I could come:
Harvey Dent does his best to shut down the mob families that run Gotham City with the help of his Assistant DA, Rachel Dawes, ace police detective Jim Gordon and, the Batman. Oh and the Joker is the monkey wrench.
Sounds like a riveting plot, huh? Cop goes after mobsters who are being messed with by a backstoryless disfigured guy in clown makeup. OH yeah and Batman’s in it. Really, Batman is superfluous. You could have stuck John Ashcroft in there instead of Batman and largely you’d be able to get away with it.
2) Joker has no concrete (or even vague) backstory. That was fine in the comic, since eventually they’d have to get to it, but the movie never does and it kind of shows in Ledger’s performance. He’s good, but feels like he’s sprung from Chris Nolan’s forehead, as opposed to seeming like something specific made him like he is. I don’t need something spelled out–but I need more than the suggestion that he is a force of nature and that’s it. He can represent a force of nature, but he still should have a backstory.
3) No sense of passing time. How many days pass during the events of the movie? One? Three? Ten? Can’t tell. I don’t need an exact number, but a sense that time passes would be nice. Too many films don’t bother with this, concentrating instead on the constant flow of action scenes.
4) The constant flow of action scenes. While I’ve seen movies with more back-to-back action, this movie never lets you rest. There wasn’t necessarily action in every scene, but it’s not a movie that slows down. Sadly, this doesn’t give us time to absorb much and as a result there were huge chunks of this movie where I had no idea what was happening or why. After about 90 minutes (I’m guessing it was that far into it) I started wondering how long this movie would be. I even found myself wishing there was a dance number in it like in “Spider-Man 3″ so I’d have a good excuse to walk out early, like I did in “Spider-Man 3.” However, there were no dance scenes, but there were plenty of things that happened so quickly that I was left wondering just what was going on.
4a) Case in point: The idiotically contrived ferry scene. Why did city authorities put all these prisoners on a ferry and all these civilians on another ferry at the same time? I missed that whole thing. Is that the only way to get prisoners to and from the prison? Seems absurd to me (but I’ll get into this more in a bit).
4b) Case in point #2: The attempt on Dent’s life. Why does Bruce Wayne go to the vacant office where the tied-up police officers are just before the attempt on Dent’s life is made?
5) Massive, massive plot holes. I understand you want to keep the movie moving, Chris, but you didn’t show us a few things we really needed to see.
5a) Batman catches Rachel after she falls off the building (Superman, 1978, much?). She then has a cute line about the fall, but then that’s it–the scene ends and the movie goes on with no mention of what happened to the Joker. The reason she fell out of the window in the first place is because Joker shoved her. He’s still up at the Wayne Penthouse threatening the lives of Bruce Wayne’s partygoers. What happened to those people and how did the Joker get out of there?
5b) They capture Joker after Gordon comes back from faking his own death. Gordon sits down to question Joker for the first time. He explains that both Rachel and Harvey have been kidnapped, now Gordon wants to know where they are. Gee, Chris! Perhaps seeing them get kidnapped MIGHT be a good thing to show in your movie? Especially considering the importance of the kidnapping. This one event leads to serious character changes across a number of characters, yet the catalyst is missing from the screen and is only mentioned in dialogue.
Moving pictures, Chris! This isn’t radio!
5b i) Gordon leaves and Batman continues the interrogation by beating up the Joker, who seems to be completely fine after having the shit kicked out of him by Batman. Last time I checked, the Joker doesn’t have any super powers and isn’t known for his rigorous work outs.
5b ii) So, Batman, the outlaw vigilante is allowed to interrogate suspects in official police interrogation rooms? Aren’t there cameras running? Perhaps a person nearby with a clear understanding of the law, that vigilantes are criminals and should be arrested, could, uh, arrest Batman? Yes, arresting Batman would be a stupid plot point. But why not get a little more creative? Have Batman appear in Joker’s holding cell without complete police cooperation?? Batman’s supposed to have ninja-like training, yet to interrogate a suspect, he gets permission first, using Gordon as his opening act???
5b iii) So, Joker finally caves under Batman’s “interrogation” tactics and spills the beans. Ultimately, we discover that he’s lied, swapping the two locations, so Batman goes after Dent, instead of Rachel. What I don’t get is why Joker told the truth at all and then, why Batman believed him at all. More than just liberals know that torture doesn’t work. The Joker is also a criminal mastermind. So, why does Batman think beating “the truth” out of the Joker will work?
Here’s a better question, why did Chris Nolan think that this was a good choice for his script?
5c) Joker visits Two-Face in the hospital. After we see Gordon tell Harvey the department nickname for him, Joker shows up and thoroughly explains his own motivation for everything. I hate it when screenwriters don’t understand the difference between subtext and text. Subtext is the unspoken motivation under everything a character does. The key to keeping it “sub”text is by never having a character EXPLAIN HIMSELF WITH PERFECT LUCIDITY. NO ONE DOES THIS IN REAL LIFE. It’s why we have shrinks. However, the Joker does it with excruciating detail in this scene and again at the end when Batman captures him. This is what we writers call “SPOON-FEEDING”. This phrase is chosen on purpose, because who do you normally spoon-feed? CHILDREN. So, when movies spoon-feed you entire swaths of character motivation in dialogue, the film is treating you like a child, assuming you won’t understand what the hell they’re trying to say with the film or the character.
I understand that Joker was trying to incite Two-Face to continue down the path to evil, but the Harvey from the comic is already schizophrenic, so he’s got that covered. How much more interesting would that scene have been if Joker sees that the two have things in common?
5c i) By the way, would it have been too much to ask that we see why Gordon’s people called Dent “Two-Face” behind his back? I mean, in the comic, Dent used his political power to cover up the fact that he had bouts with schizophrenia in his past. So, he was wrestling with his darker side long before half of his face was melted off. This movie seems to suggest that a frustrated cop can be driven batshit (!) insane by being disfigured and having his fiancee die. Yes, it’s emotionally traumatic to have a fiancee die, but does it normally (or even abnormally) cause people to suddenly suffer from multiple personalities?
5c ii) Two-Face’s escape from the hospital. Right after Joker leaves the hospital, he blows it up. Yet, somehow Harvey survives. How?
5d) I’ve already mentioned the contrived ferry-confrontation sequence. I have no idea how this ended up working since the movie kept jumping from one thing to the next to the next, but what kind of absurd BS is this? So, if the prisoners don’t blow up the civilians before the civilians blow up the prisoners, Joker will blow them both up at 12 midnight (I think that was the time). What a chunky-ass moral lesson that is. Could you and your brother make it a bit more convoluted, Chris?
How “ironic” that the biggest, meanest prisoner was the only one to really do the “right” thing (by forcing his decision on the other prisoners), meanwhile the mostly white civilians vote overwhelmingly to blow up the prisoners, yet the one white guy with the balls to say he’d carry through the unjust execution loses his nerve just before the time is up. Later, Batman claims this as proof that Gotham City is “full” of “good” people. Mmmmm, not really, Batsy-Watsy. It just means that randomly people didn’t blow each other up–as the movie (I think inadvertently) shows.
6) So, Batman builds a computer that taps into every cell phone in Gotham and uses the speakers and microphones to function as a sort of sonar that allows Batman to see into every space in the city and hear what people are saying. This will aid him in tracking down the Joker. Rightfully, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) immediately declares that this is too much power for one man to have. Bruce insists that Lucius work the machine for him because he needs to capture Joker before he kills again. Lucius immediately caves with the caveat “OK, but just this once.” He adds that he’ll quit if the device isn’t immediately destroyed after they’re done with it. Ahh, so it’s OK to violate the Constitution and hundreds of thousands of American’s rights “just once” in the interest of catching a bad guy.
Yeah, the Constitution is fine until it gets a little inconvenient (ironically a point the Joker makes in one of his speeches, which is supposed to be counteracted when those people on the ferries don’t blow each other up).
6a) Bruce tells Lucius that once the Joker is captured, he should just enter his own name into the massive eavesdropping computer and that will shut it down. In fact, it destroys the machine entirely–which seems very convenient for the plot. Bruce just happened to whip this system together (without Lucius’ knowledge) to use only once.
6b) Speaking of this Super Sonar, somehow it gets integrated into his cowl allowing him to “see” the 3-D images the technology creates. Of course, somehow through it all, he’s still beating the daylights out of cops–yeah right, I had trouble focusing on those sequences and I was just sitting there–how could he be beating someone up in front of him while looking at a 3-D image of the floor above him?
7) The movie had three climax-sized scenes that contribute to a really bad case of “Multiple Ending Syndrome.” This is a syndrome where filmmakers can’t decide where to end their movie. Like in “A.I.” Stephen Spielberg had his android boy get trapped on the bottom of the ocean, then get discovered by aliens(?) then get a robot creation of his mom, who then dies. In DK, there weren’t as many endings, but most of them were huge enough to be climaxes for their own movies.
7a) In any other movie, the badguy blowing up a hospital would be the climax. It’s what the whole movie would build up to. In this, it’s just one of four huge scenes.
7b) Harvey and Rachel are strapped to big oil drums in two different parts of Gotham and Batman must try to save them both. Big explosions ensue and so does major emotional trauma.
7c) Inexplicably two ferries are loaded with prisoners on one and civilians on the other. Joker threatens to blow them up. The crisis is averted when the people of Gotham ultimately do the right thing (even though the civilians want to blow up the prisoners and only one prisoner chooses for everyone else). Batman isn’t even involved in this part of the movie, however, except to stop the Joker from blowing both ferries up at the end.
7d) Meanwhile, the Joker is holding hostages in a building overlooking the ferries. This is the actual climax, where Joker is captured. This is also when he delivers another one of his expository speeches where he explains his subtext to Batman (and us). Here, however, the usually quiet-ish Batman gets chatty, also, explaining how Joker is wrong. The only thing I thought worked here was that Batman didn’t kill Joker and Joker’s explanation of it. This was something to the effect of: “Your rules stop you from killing me and it’s my lack of rules that keeps me from killing you!” This is the only part of either character’s speech that should have stayed because everything else was just the filmmakers explaining to us the moral arguments they, themselves were trying to make. This is kind of funny since the whole point of having heroes and villains do all this is so that you don’t have to get directly preachy–talk about missing the point!
7e) Yep, one more ending and it could even be considered a climax–this ending has Harvey Dent holding Jim Gordon’s family hostage. This was a generally good scene, but I didn’t understand why Gordon’s son kept being the focal point. This is a comic-geek issue I have, so I won’t go into it here. This is also where another stupidly expository speech happens toward the end. Batman repeats an early speech given by Alfred about how Batman “isn’t a hero” so he can take the extra slings and arrows the city needs to throw at him while he does his job. Ironically, this is the very definition of a hero.–one who sacrifices for the good of others. So, he IS a hero because he takes the blame for the murders of the police officers Dent kills. Yet, the movie literally says the opposite.
Luckily, the movie ends right after this last bit.
I have only a couple nits to pick with DK:
1) When the Batmobile/Tumbler is destroyed (why did it HAVE to be destroyed??) he escapes the heavily armored vehicle in the Batmobile’s “escape pod”–or as they later call it, the Batpod. Yep, he keeps using the thing throughout the rest of the film. I mean, what hero uses an escape pod as a regular vehicle for the rest of the movie??? Hell, the thing doesn’t even provide any cover and looks about as stable as a unicycle.
2) Gotham City did not look anything like the Gotham City from “Batman Begins.” It looked like a regular old city. Pretty damn boring to look at, if you ask me.
Here are my comic book issues with this movie:
1) In the final climax of the movie, Harvey holds a gun to Gordon’s son’s head–Batman saves Gordon’s son from falling to his death. Gordon’s son delivers the “ironic” from-the-mouth-of-babes comment that eventually leads to the mention of the movie’s title. The true irony here is that I don’t remember Gordon ever having a son in the comic–his daughter, however, eventually becomes Batgirl and then later Oracle (after the Joker shoots her through the spine in a brilliant comic called “The Killing Joke”). So why not focus on the daughter?? I just don’t get it.
2) Joker’s backstory. Yes, Joker is a force of nature, I get it, but in the comic he was a genuinely tragic character. We feel bad for him after we learn the how and why he became who he is now. I don’t really feel anything for the Joker aside from sadness that Heath Ledger is dead.
3) In the comic, Harvey Dent was always Two-Face, but did a good job of keeping his “evil” side hidden from others. His schizophrenic background was completely ignored in the movie. I think it would have helped make Dent a more tragic and interesting character.
4) In the comic (if memory serves), Gotham is established as being on the east coast–New Jersey, I think. South Jersey. Sure, everyone knows Gotham is just a metaphor for New York City, but even accepting that, why did Bruce Wayne’s Lamborghini has Illinois plates on it. OK, this makes three nits I’ve picked with DK.
5) In the classic graphic novel “The Dark Knight Returns” by Frank Miller, Harvey Dent eventually undergoes therapy and surgery to become a decent guy again. However, the mental therapy doesn’t take, despite him looking normal. He kidnaps Selina Kyle (Catwoman) who is old and retired now, and when Batman apprehends him, Dent admits that he’s still crazy and that the changes are only skin-deep. He asks Batman at one point, something along the lines of: “What do you see when you look at me?? What do you see???”
Batman replies with simply: “A reflection, Harvey.”
How brilliant is that? Yet, the idea of Batman being insane (even a little) is ignored entirely in this movie. The irony that Nolan has completely lost is that Batman, Joker and Two-Face are all different sides of the same coin (yes, I know a coin only has two sides, but stay with me)–Harvey is the center point–he represents the balance of justice–he contains both the right and the wrong. Batman is on the right side and the Joker on the wrong. However, none of these guys are “good” in any real sense–but that’s what makes them all interesting and tragic characters. This (in my opinion) very basic concept has been lost on Chris Nolan and every other director of Batman movies. I do think the first “Batman the Animated Series” creators understood this. To date, I feel that their interpretation of the Batman universe is the best amalgam of the comics.
If you’re like most folks who actually read this whole thing (thank you, by the way) right now you’re probably thinking to yourself “Yeah, but none of that stuff bothered me.”
Well, that’s fine. That doesn’t make the film a perfect movie, however. I’m simply presenting what I felt were weaknesses in the film.
For the record, I really liked “Batman Begins” a lot and went into “Dark Knight” wanting to like it, too. But right when we didn’t see how Joker escaped from Bruce’s penthouse, the film started to lose me. Sure, it was still entertaining, but it really was a mess.
I don’t want anyone to enjoy the film less, I just want people to stop praising it as though it is some flawless work of art. I mean, do we need another movie like “Titanic” whose audience was so incredibly wrong about? I don’t think so.
Please, I hope everyone can enjoy “Dark Knight”. I also hope everyone can see it’s flaws.
11 Comments
The moment that bothered me the most was when the Joker lit the huge pyramid of money. He left the Chinese mob/corporate boss-man trussed up and sitting at the top of the pyramid. When he threw gasoline on and lit the money (which alighted quite quickly due to a cut), there were no screams of mercy from the man who was literally burning to death, no cuts to a burning body, even no Joker turning around and going “Oh come on, don’t complain, you’re ruining the poetry” or something like that. At least acknowledge the fact that someone is up there, dying, and take advantage of the fact that his death is ironic (he probably always dreamed of dying an old man on a huge bed made from cash). And if the Chinese boss was supposed to be dead before the fire was lit, the filmmaker didn’t shoot it very well to establish this.
That’s a very good point. While I wasn’t conscious of that bothering me while watching the movie, I know it would have if only the filmmaker had actually given me a moment to notice his mistake. It’s just one of many screw ups the guys behind the movie let go, either intentionally or by accident.
at times the Joker seemed almost too smart, borderline clairvoyant, but i guess that makes him a good foe…
Yeah, I kind of liked that just because I prefer smarter characters who really think for themselves, but without the proper character development (which this film lacked in the script), he does end up seeming almost psychic, you’re right. Ah well, maybe in Batman 3, right?
Thanks for the comment!
I’ve seen a few mentions of people having things that they didn’t like / understand abot the movie, but none that are put together as well as this one. I enjoy discussing things like this, so I’ll try to address everyone’s points as well as I can.
————————————
ThePete
1): As Lt Gordon’s Major Crimes Unit and Gotham’s new DA Harvey Dent are cracking down on crime, the mob is forced to join forces ,and make a deal with the Joker after an attempt to secure their funding through a Chinese Accountant is foiled by Batman. As the Dark Knight & Gotham’s law enforcement forces come together, the Joker exploits his mob connections and virtually unlimited assets to test his ultimate opponent Batman, as he attempts bring the law to its knees, and throw the city into total chaos and anarchy. (that’s about as close as I could get int 2 or fewer sentances)
2): He starts as a regular criminal – he references not wanting to go back to ripping off mob lawyers and stealing. His backstory is covered by the end of Batman Begins- double homicide bank robber, and the ‘escalation’ that Gordon refers to. He becomes the Joker he’s seemingly envisioned being as he explains himself to Batman in the interrogation room – he exists as the complete antithesis to what Batman is. As long as Batman is there to try and save the city, he will try to destroy it by any means necessairy.
3): I must agree with you completely on this. I think it’s meant to cast everything into a blur amidst everything that the Joker’s doing, but it was rather troubling to the to think of afterwards.
4): It’s likely that I’m a very analytical person, but the periods of character dialogue between them allowed me fully enough time to grasp where everything was just before a quiet scene with a haunting violin came in hinting that the next atrocity of the Joker’s was just around the corner.
4a): There’s no access out of Gotham due to the fact that the Bridges and Tunnels are lined with explosives. Comissioner Gordon suspects that whatever the Joker’s planning in going to involve the criminals the Dent put in Jail, since they’d be left under very minimal security in an empty city if they remained in Arkham. Thus they had first priority to get out of the city.
4b): It’s actually an attempt on the Mayor’s life, not Dent. Bruce’s following a clue to try and find where the assasination’s going to be done from, since they’ve been following the Joker’s clues to see who his previous targets were.
5): We’ll come to this in the specifics below.
5a): I assume he left the same way he came in. He manages to run out of everywhere he puts himself, and I’m certain none of Bruce’s wealthy party guests would follow him. Rachel was taken and tossed to get Batman out of the building so that he could escape.
5b): A second time will help with this if you watch the crooked cops. You see Harvey getting driven away by one of them, and the mystery behind Ramirez being a mob cop is held until later. It’s mentioned vocally when someone tells Gordon they’ve been kidnapped. You couldn’t see it happen, because it would clue you in to the crooked cops in Gordon’s unit before it’s addressed by the Joker and also by Two Face later on. The movie is much more potent a second time when you hear Ramirez mention her mother in the hospital, and realize that the MCU is the reason the mob keeps getting off the hook, and Joker can continue to get away with things.
5b i): It’s completely possible to take a beating like that and come out ok. Especially being a thug who handles himself well, and Batman not having any super powers either, it’s likely he’s had the living daylight beat out of him in the past by some tough people, not to mention the pain he’s had to endure to get the MASSIVE scars on his face. So that wasn’t really surprising to me.
5b ii): Gordon’s MCU has ALWAYS operated on the edge of legality with Batman (no wonder some of the cops in the unit were under investigation in IA, and the suspect list for Batman consists of Elvis, Abe Lincoln, & Sasquatch). That’s why he shows up at crime scenes, and is left alone, why they have the flood light on the roof, etc. He also helped them by getting the police lightly irridiated bills to find the mob banks to begin with.
5b iii): If they leave it up to interrogation, he’s in the zone he’s been manipulating Gotham around in, and he’s in his element – proof with how he handles Gordon, thus Batman’s basically allowed to do whatever to get the subject to talk like he’s been doing with every other criminal so far, eventually realizing that he can’t threaten the Joker with anything at all. Joker told the truth because it was part of the setup. The bombs were set with timers, and Harvey’s location is incredibly important to Batman since it means that someone can take up his mantle, and he can be with Rachel. Joker’s large goal is to make Batman feel hopeless, thus switching the addresses so that he can take away the one thing that Batman would really want to save.
5c): This isn’t as much spoon feeding the audience, as showing how the Joker’s taking painstaking care to make sure that the one man that could possibly take over batman’s position is thrown into darkness. He’s leading Dent away from what he did, and making him focus on the cops that Joker’s been using. Making Dent into a cop killer is something that his reputation couldn’t ever recover from.
If Dent’s character in the movie was schizophrenic, it would ruin the credibility for his character as being a suitable replacement for Batman. The biggest point is that Joker managed to take the very best of them, and destroy everything he had done, whereas Batman had to go through the same thing, but remain incorruptable.
5c i): He doesn’t have split personalities. He’s torn between the decision on what’s right and wrong to make people pay for the crimes that they’ve committed – thus flipping the coin to determine if he should kill the dirty cops or not. The Two Face reference is because he was helping them put people away, while at the same time investigating the cops in Gordon’s unit when he worked in Internal Affairs.
5c ii): It’s unshown, and admittely a bit confusing. I would’ve appreciated a scene of Two Face leaving, but at the same time the last time you see Dent, he’s got a gun to Joker’s head that he doesn’t shoot, so Joker would’ve just let his Ace in the Hole go.
5d): I explained this for the most part, but it’s really a reference to Joker’s quote from the interrogation that he’ll make the people destroy each other. It’s his intention to try to turn Gotham in on itself, thus this proposition is completely understandable.
What this proves is that Gotham isn’t full of people who would rather take a life than die themselves. The Prisoner throws the detonater out the window, because they’ve already had their chance. It explains exactly what Batman stated.
6): This is once again Batman working outside the law, so it’s not surprising. This time, he needs someone else to work the machine, and tell him where to look, as well as to run the search for the Joker’s voice. This is set up with the “Army Cell Phone” deal that he starts behind Lucius’ back, and what alerts the other accountant to who Batman is. In building it, he avoids telling Lucius because he knows what he’d think of the machine, and thus enables Lucius’ name to destroy the machine when he builds it.
Again – Batman’s a vigilante, he breaks any law necessairy for the greater good of preserving Gotham.
6a): I made note of this point above.
6b:) The drop down that Bruce added to his helmet that gives him a visual display of the sonar allows him to see things in front of him just from his point of view as I understood it. He could see through multiple floors, since the signals basically allow him to look through walls and see everywhere a signal is transmitting from. Lucius is the one looking at the panning view to find where Bruce needs to be focusing his attention – thus the relay of him saying that there are cops on the roof, in the elevator, etc.
7): It’s supposed to follow the fact that the Joker keeps moving things one step further. I for one greatly enjoyed the fact that everything comes together, and then a new wrench gets thrown in the works. It’s better than a twist ending, and it keeps the story interesting.
7a): Again – I don’t see this as a bad thing, but to each their own. If it went out on this note, the Joker would’ve won. It was SUPPOSED to go out with an even bigger non-empty Ferry full of people being blown sky high, but I addressed this point already, thus the Joker not being able to throw Gotham into total anarchy despite everything he did.
7b): This is the big shift in character motivation, and when the movie finally gets put to a point where Batman is faced with the fact that Dent can no longer take his place, and he can never have a normal life with Rachel.
7c): This is the big message of Gotham saving itself that I’ve mentioned a few times already. Batman prevents the Joker from destroying both ferries, because it’s his job to save Gotham.
7d): This is set up so that the police will have to focus their attention on capturing the Joker. The whole point of every villain in Batman is that they’re a reflection of some part of Bruce/Batman’s own personality & inner struggle. Things like this have to be explained to be able to be used to their full potential, and there’s nothing bad about lead villian & hero having a conversation, especially at the end of the movie.
7e): There’s a difference, he’s not the hero that Gotham needs. It’s not that he isn’t a hero. Dent and the preservation of his reputation were the hero that Gotham needed, so Batman became the one they hunted. It doesn’t say he’s not a hero at all. The whole silent protector, Dark Knight speech by Gordon at the end is a statement of him being a hero.
————————————
Siskita
He’s tied and gagged on the top of the Pyramid, thus we don’t hear him dying, and the Joker throws the money into his face before jumping down. The speech that Joker gives to the Chechen (Russian mob boss) is talking about Money not mattering, and Gotham needing a better class of criminal. It’s shows that he doesn’t care for money, or criminals who only focus on money that he doesn’t really acknowledge his death.
For anyone confused on where the scene takes place: Lau was the one keeping the money in a secure location (on the boat in Gotham harbor where the scene takes place) that Joker manages to learn from him when he ‘rescues him’ from the cell in the MCU – note that he says the character’s a squealer early on.
————————————
Patrick
After Lau’s capture, the Joker basically has full resources of the entirety of every one of Gotham’s mobs, as well as the dirty cops in Gordon’s unit, so that’s how he manages to constantly stay one step ahead of everything the entire movie. (Another thing that’s easier to notice the second time through)
X-Solider–wow–thanks for the incredibly detailed reply (and the compliment). I want to read your entire reply, and I plan to respond, as well. It just might take me a day or two to get to it. Apologies in advance. Thanks for taking the time to both reply and read my post.
Thanks you much for the quick response, it’s incredibly appreciated. I’ll keep an eye on the page for when you have time to put out a more detailed response.
Calm down buddy. I agree with some of what you say but im guessing it took you about a half a day to think of, write and itemize all this. And thats just the kind of pathetic ire that deserves an extended response:
You simultaneously complain about being spoon-fed and that there was too much action while also whining about not having every little action plot point shown to you (such as the kidnapping of Dent and Dawes). You can’t have it both ways. You also can’t effectively demand more filler and complain about the film’s length. I actually appreciated the jumps in time and plot with only dialogue to explain the gaps. Its a refreshing departure from standard hollywood action feces. It leaves more of the plot to your imagination. Either the Joker went on a rampage at Dent’s event at Wayne’s place, or he couldn’t find Dent and left peacefully. Point is (and you missed it) that a LOT of time passes between the many scenes in this movie and the details that are skipped are not important to the plot. For example, the mobster who Batman drops from a nonlethal height and breaks his legs. .Two scenes later he’s walking with a cane. Pay attention.
Pretty much all of your complaints in 5a through 5d are more ridiculous than the the minor suspensions of disbelief required to just enjoy the movie. Dont be petty. One exception: The ferry scene! I agree that that was waaay too convoluted, and it the prisoners’ presence had something to do with the fact that Dent put them all away, but it was still too much B.S. to be glossed over, which Nolan obviously attempted to do.
You missed the point with number 6. All of your complaints about the sonar system are easily ignored compared to the question of how Wayne got the sonar program installed on every phone in Gotham.
Points 7 a, b and c: What?? Why do you think all massive explosions (or potential ones) automatically constitute climaxes. Haven’t you ever seen a movie with a large explosion in the very beginning? (Usual Suspects comes to mind) Are you really a writer??
I’ll ignore your “nitpicks” (your second numbered sequence, lol) since you recognize them as such, but I will agree with your contrast with the comic storyline–particularly Batman’s own edge of insanity being lost on the film-making crowd.
In summary: Of COURSE this movie was not a flawless work of art, and I haven’t heard anyone call it that exactly. But if they do, why does it bother you so much? All I can say about your opinion is that you are a terribly cynical person. If you are really a writer, I’m glad you had no hand in DK.
OK, finally getting to this. Apologies for not getting to it sooner.
————————————
1): You pretty much prove my point. I’m not saying all good stories need a simple premise, but the fact that you had to go beyond even one sentence to describe the story shows that it’s probably more complicated than it needs to be. Also, Batman barely makes an appearance in your synopsis. The synopsis of a Batman movie (in theory) should begin with one word: Batman…
2): “He starts as a regular criminal – he references not wanting to go back to ripping off mob lawyers and stealing.”
Does he? When was this? I don’t remember. Also, isn’t he lying? He lies other places about his past.
“His backstory is covered by the end of Batman Begins- double homicide bank robber, and the ‘escalation’ that Gordon refers to.”
So, a few lines of dialog in the *last* movie equates to a backstory?
Regarding Joker existing to be the opposite side of the coin to Batman, I get that, but Joker explaining that isn’t exactly subtle filmmaking.
3): Glad we agree on the time-passing thing. It doesn’t bother a lot of people, but I find it adds to the fatigue-factor. This movie is already long by most films at 2.5 hours–it felt longer thanks to there being no sense of night and day, excitement and calm, etc.
4): “…the periods of character dialogue between them allowed me fully enough time to grasp where everything was…”
I am pretty analytical, too, but that didn’t help me here. I felt beaten up with plot points by the end. So many minor things to keep track of.
4a): “There’s no access out of Gotham due to the fact that the Bridges and Tunnels are lined with explosives.”
OK, I missed that. It must have been in some dialog someplace that I missed.
“Comissioner Gordon suspects that whatever the Joker’s planning in going to involve the criminals the Dent put in Jail, since they’d be left under very minimal security in an empty city if they remained in Arkham. Thus they had first priority to get out of the city.”
By ferry? Seems like a truck, bus or van might be a bit more secure, safe and practical.
4b): “It’s actually an attempt on the Mayor’s life, not Dent.”
In all the chaos, I totally missed this point.
“Bruce’s following a clue to try and find where the assasination’s going to be done from, since they’ve been following the Joker’s clues to see who his previous targets were.”
Again, I totally missed this. Too much movie jammed into 2.5 hours, I think.
5a): “I assume he left the same way he came in. He manages to run out of everywhere he puts himself, and I’m certain none of Bruce’s wealthy party guests would follow him. Rachel was taken and tossed to get Batman out of the building so that he could escape.”
It seems like you’re just making excuses for the film. The bad guy got away and Batman didn’t even try to stop him. Where was Alfred? Where were the police? It was a fund raiser for Dent, surely there were other police at the party.
5b): “A second time will help with this if you watch the crooked cops.”
Sorry, but a movie shouldn’t require you to see the movie twice in order for you to grasp the basic plot elements.
“You couldn’t see it happen, because it would clue you in to the crooked cops in Gordon’s unit before it’s addressed by the Joker”
You can shoot around that. Besides, wouldn’t us knowing Gordon had crooked cops under his command heighten the tension for us?
“The movie is much more potent a second time when you hear Ramirez mention her mother in the hospital, and realize that the MCU is the reason the mob keeps getting off the hook, and Joker can continue to get away with things.”
As you explain it to me now, I don’t see how the MCU is the reason the mob keeps getting off the hook. I remember Ramirez mentioning her mother in the hospital. I don’t know what significance this has. (Yes, I get that crooked cops probably messed things up and allowed the mob to get away, but this doesn’t explain how any of the mob was allowed to be put in jail in the first place. Also, I get why Ramirez’ mom being in the hospital was how the Joker extorted her into helping him, I just don’t get your point here.)
5b i): “It’s completely possible to take a beating like that and come out ok.”
Batman is a trained bad-ass. Joker is (I assume) a common hood with an uncommon mind. He seems completely undamaged later on. How cool would it have been if the Joker had a cast or a crutch on a later heist? Or even a mention that the pain was delightful?
“Especially being a thug who handles himself well, and Batman not having any super powers either, it’s likely he’s had the living daylight beat out of him in the past by some tough people,”
This is something you’re reading into the movie. It’s not in the film. The film requires you to make an assumption. Also Batman is essentially a trained ninja. He has super powers, he’s just acquired them through years of training.
“not to mention the pain he’s had to endure to get the MASSIVE scars on his face.”
This is a good point, but since we don’t know where the scars came from, what reason do we have to even believe they’re real? The Joker is shown lying, so, in my mind, I don’t want to trust anything about him. Of course, I assume they’re real, but the movie does nothing to reinforce this assumption.
5b ii): “Gordon’s MCU has ALWAYS operated on the edge of legality with Batman”
I understand that, but this is where the film stops being realistic, in my opinion. Meeting up with Batman on the roof is one thing, but letting him into police headquarters? That seems absurd. Maybe that’s just my opinion, but it’s a weak choice that is more contrivance than it should be.
5b iii): “Batman’s basically allowed to do whatever to get the subject to talk like he’s been doing with every other criminal so far,”
All right, maybe this is my own personal opinion sneaking in again, but I don’t see this as realistic for either Gordon or Batman to believe as a reliable tactic. Joker’s proven he’s insane by this point.
“Joker told the truth because it was part of the setup.”
Wouldn’t it be more chaotic if he lied? Then both Harvey and Rachel would be dead.
Also, my question was: Why did Batman and Gordon believe the Joker would tell the truth?
“Joker’s large goal is to make Batman feel hopeless, thus switching the addresses so that he can take away the one thing that Batman would really want to save.”
What’s more hopeless than a criminal who lies even under the threat of physical violence? It would say to Batman “Fear doesn’t work with me.” In other words, it would be like saying to Batman’s face, “All this costume stuff, all the violence, all your training and all of your thinking is useless against me.”
That would be a pretty awesome direction to go in, I would think.
5c): “This isn’t as much spoon feeding the audience, as showing how the Joker’s taking painstaking care to make sure that the one man that could possibly take over batman’s position is thrown into darkness.”
I can see that, but I think it’s obvious that such a thing can be done with a bit more subtlety than the film does. I’m sticking to the spoon-feeding thing. Joker just walking in and explaining everything is heavy handed. It’s obvious what he’s doing–painfully, boringly obvious.
“If Dent’s character in the movie was schizophrenic, it would ruin the credibility for his character as being a suitable replacement for Batman.”
Which happens anyway. The tragedy of Two-Face is that it was his destiny to become this person. It wasn’t a physical deformity that made him evil (what a horrible thing that would be to say).
“The biggest point is that Joker managed to take the very best of them, and destroy everything he had done,”
Actually, Joker only needed to *think* that. Batman could have tossed Harvey’s uncovered psychiatric records at him and said “Harvey was always lost. You did nothing.”
Again, I think a stronger choice would have been to stick to the story in the comics.
5c i): “He doesn’t have split personalities.”
His name is Two-Face for a reason. Of course, in the movie, they don’t really portray him as multiple-personalitied, but he is in the comic, which is what I think I was talking about.
“He’s torn between the decision on what’s right and wrong to make people pay for the crimes that they’ve committed – thus flipping the coin to determine if he should kill the dirty cops or not.”
I understand the basic dynamic of the character. What I think you’re missing is that he *is* schizophrenic, well, he’s supposed to be. He has two personalities–one believes in justice and the other corruption. Perhaps I’m invoking the comic again.
“The Two Face reference is because he was helping them put people away, while at the same time investigating the cops in Gordon’s unit when he worked in Internal Affairs.”
Was that in the movie anywhere? I think I’d have to pull dialog from two different scenes and even then, it’s still dialog–characters explaining stuff. There’s that heavy-handed stuff again where people talk too much. Show don’t tell is the classic rule this movie violates left and right.
5c ii): “It’s unshown, and admittely a bit confusing. I would’ve appreciated a scene of Two Face leaving, but at the same time the last time you see Dent, he’s got a gun to Joker’s head that he doesn’t shoot, so Joker would’ve just let his Ace in the Hole go.”
I think that’s you reading into it. To me it looked like Joker left Two-Face to die or not (because Joker is that crazy). Seeing TF alive and functioning later was fine, but annoying.
5d): “I explained this for the most part, but it’s really a reference to Joker’s quote from the interrogation that he’ll make the people destroy each other.”
In the most convoluted, complicated way possible? Maybe this is personal opinion again, but there’s GOT to be a better way to do it than somehow getting prisoners And civilians onto two different ferries.
“It’s his intention to try to turn Gotham in on itself, thus this proposition is completely understandable.”
As with much of the movie, I have no problem with this in theory–it’s the execution that I’m disappointed with.
“What this proves is that Gotham isn’t full of people who would rather take a life than die themselves. The Prisoner throws the detonater out the window, because they’ve already had their chance. It explains exactly what Batman stated.”
I disagree and I say how in my original post above. This whole thing is contrived. The Joker still wins since the criminal decided for everyone on his boat (dictatorship) and the civilians all voted to blow up the criminals (fascism much?). Both choices were wrong and I don’t see how either is proof that Gotham is filled with good people.
6): “This is once again Batman working outside the law, so it’s not surprising.”
Batman *always* works outside the law–that wasn’t my point.
“This time, he needs someone else to work the machine,”
Alfred?
“and tell him where to look, as well as to run the search for the Joker’s voice.”
He can’t have the computer do it?
“This is set up with the “Army Cell Phone” deal that he starts behind Lucius’ back, and what alerts the other accountant to who Batman is. In building it, he avoids telling Lucius because he knows what he’d think of the machine, and thus enables Lucius’ name to destroy the machine when he builds it.”
I didn’t get that from the movie. I didn’t see it anywhere.
“Again – Batman’s a vigilante, he breaks any law necessairy for the greater good of preserving Gotham.”
I disagree, but I’d be invoking the comic again and I feel like that’s not fair to do that. On a strictly personal point, I feel that sending a message that breaking laws to protect people is a dangerous message to send, especially since it seems to work so well in the movie.
6b:) “The drop down that Bruce added to his helmet that gives him a visual display of the sonar allows him to see things in front of him just from his point of view as I understood it. He could see through multiple floors, since the signals basically allow him to look through walls and see everywhere a signal is transmitting from. Lucius is the one looking at the panning view to find where Bruce needs to be focusing his attention – thus the relay of him saying that there are cops on the roof, in the elevator, etc.”
OK, what you just said was pretty indicative of how confusing this sequence was in the movie. So, I could have gotten it wrong, but that just goes to my earlier point that there are just too many things going on in this movie. It just stops being coherent. In fact, you seeing it twice puts you at an unfair advantage to me. I am judging the film on one viewing. A second will undoubtedly bias you for the film since you liked it enough to see it again.
7): “I for one greatly enjoyed the fact that everything comes together, and then a new wrench gets thrown in the works. It’s better than a twist ending, and it keeps the story interesting.”
Well, that’s fine, but enjoying the movie doesn’t mean it was well crafted. That’s my point. Sure, the multiple climaxes may do all the things you say they do, but they’re still multiple climaxes–all of the same scale and intensity. A good filmmaker builds up to the biggest climax at the end. The hospital was just as exciting as the other climaxes.
7a): “If it went out on this note, the Joker would’ve won.”
That would have been a cool ending. I’d have been fine with that.
“It was SUPPOSED to go out with an even bigger non-empty Ferry full of people being blown sky high, but I addressed this point already, thus the Joker not being able to throw Gotham into total anarchy despite everything he did.”
Not sure I follow you regarding this–a hospital full of people being evacuated so quickly is absurd to begin with–but having the Joker rig it to explode would have been a great climax for the movie. Then the threat would have been “can we evacuate everyone fast enough?” Not, the way it turned out.
7b): “This is the big shift in character motivation, and when the movie finally gets put to a point where Batman is faced with the fact that Dent can no longer take his place, and he can never have a normal life with Rachel.”
But it’s too big–it feels like a movie-ender. In any other film, Two-Face’s appearance would have been the set up for the next movie.
7c): “This is the big message of Gotham saving itself that I’ve mentioned a few times already. Batman prevents the Joker from destroying both ferries, because it’s his job to save Gotham.”
But ultimately, Batman is not required except to stop Joker from pressing a button–not the most heroic thing for a hero to do. Then again, we’re supposed to believe Batman isn’t a hero.
7d): “The whole point of every villain in Batman is that they’re a reflection of some part of Bruce/Batman’s own personality & inner struggle. Things like this have to be explained to be able to be used to their full potential,”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. These things are already obvious. As I said in my post, the whole reason we have heroes and villains duke it out is so we don’t have to preach to people what is right and wrong.
“and there’s nothing bad about lead villian & hero having a conversation, especially at the end of the movie.”
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Most of the time such conversations end up being overly explanatory (like in DK or say, “Kill Bill”) or they end up being stupid pithy one-liner-fests where both the hero and the villain try to prove how clever they are with words.
The thing you miss is that Batman is generally not a talky guy. He’s the Dark Knight–the proverbial strong, silent type. His actions speak for themselves. At least, they should.
7e): “There’s a difference, he’s not the hero that Gotham needs. It’s not that he isn’t a hero.”
Well, I must be going deaf because I could have sworn that both Alfred and Batman say that Batman is not a hero.
“Dent and the preservation of his reputation were the hero that Gotham needed, so Batman became the one they hunted.”
He should already have been the one they hunted. That’s what I don’t get. The film makes so much out of Batman being the one taking the lumps when that’s been the case all along. Again, as far back as Jesus, heroes take the lumps so we don’t have to.
“It doesn’t say he’s not a hero at all. The whole silent protector, Dark Knight speech by Gordon at the end is a statement of him being a hero.”
Silent? :P
I’d have to see the movie again to be sure (and I don’t want to see the movie again) but I’m pretty sure there is dialog in the film that states Batman is not a hero. If memory serves, there’s also a bit of dialog where Alfred says that sometimes people deserve “more than the truth.”
This bugs me as much as the hero-stuff. Is there anything more than the truth? Are lies more than the truth? Is it OK to protect people by lying to them? I don’t think so.
But this doesn’t speak to the technical problems with the film. Just the moral ones.
————————————
Siskita
“It’s shows that he doesn’t care for money, or criminals who only focus on money that he doesn’t really acknowledge his death.”
I won’t presume to respond on Siskita’s behalf, but I think you’re reading into things again. We don’t see that Joker is ignoring the Chinese dude’s death–we see nothing at all. If he doesn’t care, it’s the film’s job to show us he doesn’t care. Show the other characters reacting to the death while Joker does not.
“Hey, I’M OVER HERE!” Joker could have said to them.
————————————
Patrick
“After Lau’s capture, the Joker basically has full resources of the entirety of every one of Gotham’s mobs, as well as the dirty cops in Gordon’s unit, so that’s how he manages to constantly stay one step ahead of everything the entire movie. (Another thing that’s easier to notice the second time through)”
This makes sense, but I think the film could have done more to show this relationship with the mob.
And now I’ll reply to “Yeratool” who’s childishness makes me want to turn off comments completely. In fact, I’m tempted to not reply to him at all. However, I do like to give everyone a chance to be nice a second time, so I’ll show him more respect than he’s showing me and any other readers of mine.
“Calm down buddy.”
Who’s not calm?
“I agree with some of what you say but im guessing it took you about a half a day to think of, write and itemize all this.”
Nope. Just a couple hours. I would have gotten to it sooner, but you know, I have a life.
“And thats just the kind of pathetic ire that deserves an extended response:”
Haha, so you don’t think commenting on a post you think is pathetic is pathetic in itself?
What are you going to do? Put me in my place? Prove your intellectual prowess–on the Internet, no less?
“You simultaneously complain about being spoon-fed and that there was too much action while also whining about not having every little action plot point shown to you (such as the kidnapping of Dent and Dawes).”
That’s right! Wow, you’re a real sharp guy! See, here’s how it works, bright-eyes (I hope you can take it as well as you can give it):
1) spoon-fed=too much dialog detailing what’s going on and what has happened. This is bad because it’s a MOVIE, SHOW don’t TELL.
2) Too much action means less time for showing.
3) I believe you just made my point for me. Yes, they should SHOW plot points to us, not TELL US ABOUT THEM.
“You can’t have it both ways.”
What “both ways” do I want it? I think your own ire has clouded your judgement here, a bit.
“You also can’t effectively demand more filler and complain about the film’s length.”
Why not? Cut out one or three of the climaxes and you’ll have plenty of time for good movie-making. Some of my favorite films are longer than 2 hours. To be honest, I’m beginning to think you’re not so sharp after all since I didn’t complain about the running-time. I complained about the movie being too long–there’s a difference. I felt the story had too much in it. My favorite movie ever is “Das Boot”. The director’s cut of that is over 3 hours long.
“I actually appreciated the jumps in time and plot with only dialogue to explain the gaps.”
That’s nice that you did. That doesn’t make it good filmmaking. A good film (in my opinion, as this is my blog) allows for a feeling of the passage of time. In my opinion, movies should feel like they are real events in time.
“Its a refreshing departure from standard hollywood action feces.”
You must not see shitty Hollywood movies very often then since almost every film out of H’wood fails to create any sense of time passing at all. This was something I said in my original post, I believe.
“It leaves more of the plot to your imagination.”
If I wanted to imagine the plot why go to the movie? Hell, I should have just imagined the plot myself–I could have seen a much better movie.
“Either the Joker went on a rampage at Dent’s event at Wayne’s place, or he couldn’t find Dent and left peacefully. Point is (and you missed it) that a LOT of time passes between the many scenes in this movie and the details that are skipped are not important to the plot.”
I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, how the bad guy gets away from the hero’s penthouse is pretty important. Hell, Alfred used to hunt people in Burma–why didn’t he try to catch Joker?
“For example, the mobster who Batman drops from a nonlethal height and breaks his legs. .Two scenes later he’s walking with a cane. Pay attention.”
Who’s not paying attention? What does this have to do with anything? So, Eric Roberts has a cane? Who had a problem with this? I think maybe you’re not paying attention.
“Pretty much all of your complaints in 5a through 5d are more ridiculous than the the minor suspensions of disbelief required to just enjoy the movie.”
So, why are you bothering with this comment at all?
“Dont be petty.”
Look who’s talking! You’re the one posting a comment on someone’s blog telling me how I’m wrong about my “petty” opinions. The least you could do is make it worth our time by mounting honest, respectful arguments instead of calling names and being a jerkweed.
“One exception: The ferry scene! I agree that that was waaay too convoluted, and it the prisoners’ presence had something to do with the fact that Dent put them all away, but it was still too much B.S. to be glossed over, which Nolan obviously attempted to do.”
Well, that makes one thing we agree on and I’m glad I’m not the only person who feels this way. Though I can tell from the rest of your comment I shouldn’t be too comfy with this crowd.
“You missed the point with number 6. All of your complaints about the sonar system are easily ignored compared to the question of how Wayne got the sonar program installed on every phone in Gotham.”
Not at all and I love it when people tell me I missed the point simultaneously as they are missing my point.
You can hack phones just as easily as you can hack computers, in theory. You could even set up a bot so you wouldn’t have to hack them all yourself. So, that nullifies your complaint entirely.
“Points 7 a, b and c: What?? Why do you think all massive explosions (or potential ones) automatically constitute climaxes. Haven’t you ever seen a movie with a large explosion in the very beginning? (Usual Suspects comes to mind) Are you really a writer??”
Haha, that’s funny. Explosions don’t always equal climaxes, this is obvious since I describe the ferries scene as a climax. It’s common Hollywood-movie language to swap out emotional excitement with explosions, so, some climaxes have explosions and others have emotional explosions. I’m sure you know this. This is why I lump all of those climaxes in together. I feel the hospital sequence would have made for a good ending because in the movie “Hard Boiled” the climax took place in a hospital. So, it’s been done, but the Joker holding it hostage would have made it substantially different enough to avoid any accusations of being a rip-off.
“I’ll ignore your “nitpicks” (your second numbered sequence, lol) since you recognize them as such, but I will agree with your contrast with the comic storyline–particularly Batman’s own edge of insanity being lost on the film-making crowd.”
Well, I’ll give you points there.
“In summary: Of COURSE this movie was not a flawless work of art, and I haven’t heard anyone call it that exactly.”
Nor have I but everyone says it’s great and wonderful and very few people acknowledge it’s actually a messy, messy film.
“But if they do, why does it bother you so much?”
If you read my blog at all (I’m guessing you don’t, that’s cool–I’m not offended or anything), you can tell that I have a thing for pointing out what falls between the cracks. Lately, it’s just been pictures of things related to my move to NYC, but before May of this year (and for roughly ten years), I have been posting a lot about things people just don’t notice. See, America has this problem facing the negative in things. Not always, but I think a $300 million opening weekend take is a good example.
Don’t you remember when “Titanic” made all that money? That movie is shit. So I just do my part, whether it’s pointing out how Bush sucked (long before Iraq or even 911) or itemizing the problems I had with DK. It’s my blog, don’t like it? No worries. You can go like other blogs. No harm no fowl.
“All I can say about your opinion is that you are a terribly cynical person. If you are really a writer, I’m glad you had no hand in DK.”
Haha, just when I was starting to like you!!
Why do you think I’m so cynical? I’m sure people like you posting insulting comments on my blog defending a movie I just took apart with a wrench and a pair of pliers has nothing to do with it.
Thanks to all of you for your comments. I’m glad I’m not alone with (some) of my opinions.
You are all stupid and don’t understand the movie. I just wanna watch this movie with you and explain EVERYTHING to you guys cause you have no idea what your talking about. Whoever said about weird time changes, the movie is 3 hours. If they would have normal time it would 3 days. Oh and the movie ISN’T the comic book, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!
If you have questions about it, ask me cause I’m the only one who gets this movie and I’m probably 1/3 of your age and u guys are just old and fat.
Haha, OK, Delila, you don’t think having to explain a movie to a person makes the movie lame?
Also, here’s a tip, don’t call people stupid when you comment. For starters it makes you seem childish and on top of that, it seems pretty odd to call someone stupid and then admonish them for being stupid. It’s like, duh, we’re stupid, you said so yourself, why are you criticizing us for being what you know we are. Were you expecting brilliance from someone you called stupid?
Post a Comment