Over the weekend, I was callously attacked in a YouTube video by a notorious far-right extremist by the name of Ben Shapiro. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
Stop it for a second; just stop it! That's so—oh my God, oh my God! Uh, Ben waged this brutal cyber assault against me because of a recent video of mine, where I listed the top five most overrated movies of all time.
Ben decided to issue a rebuttal to my list, even though I explicitly say at the beginning of my original video that my list is incontrovertibly correct and is not up for discussion. Did Ben not hear that disclaimer? What part of "not up for discussion" did you not understand, Ben?
Now, there's not enough time for me to explain my list in detail again; you can go to that video and hear for yourself. Just to briefly summarize, the top five most overrated films of all time, as declared by me and by science, are: *The Shawshank Redemption*, *Toy Story*, *The Dark Knight*, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, and all of the *Star Wars* films— including, and especially, the originals. "No area sanitized, all targets destroyed; solid copy, no movement detected.
" Now, some people have speculated that the whole reason I made this list and singled out those particular movies was solely to troll Ben Shapiro. That is the wild conspiracy theory floating out there on the internet. But I ask you this: Do I seem like the kind of guy who would take the time to record a video just to troll someone?
Am I so petty, contrarian, and immature that I would make a video designed solely to annoy and antagonize one of the owners of the company I work for? I think we all know the answer to that [Music] question. Now, today, I want to respond to this unprovoked assault and onslaught from someone who I thought was a friend.
I'm not going to even acknowledge his rebuttal to my points about *Toy Story*, *Shawshank Redemption*, *Star Wars*, or Marvel. Frankly, I'm so obviously correct about all those films that it would be almost insulting to the viewer for me to bother defending the point. My arguments were expressed so eloquently and presented with such striking lucidity and depth of analysis that it would be pointless to elaborate.
It would be like asking Michelangelo to recreate the statue of David. He could do it, certainly, but why should he waste his time repeating himself? Instead, I'm going to focus only on Ben's response to my arguments against *The Dark Knight*.
Uh, Ben is very fond of *The Dark Knight*. He talks about it all the time. He told me he watches the movie once a week and weeps each time.
He didn't say that specifically, but I read between the lines. The point is that he loves the movie, and that probably explains why his response on this movie in particular was so vicious and so hurtful. "Watch, uh, number three: *The Dark Knight*.
Now, shut—once again, good film; it just isn't the masterpiece that people make it out to be. Without Heath Ledger's great performance, this movie wouldn't be remembered for anything in particular. " Oh, you mean one of the key roles in the film is actually crucial to the film?
Truly, one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard! "Matt, without the Academy Award-winning best villain in film history in the film, it's a different movie. " I could do that with literally anything.
You know, the New Testament without Jesus? Not nearly as good! "Like, take Heath Ledger out of it; what does anyone remember about this movie?
Who cares about this movie except for that it's great by Batman movie standards? But it's not great as a piece of cinema. " And I thought my jokes were bad!
Okay, first of all, Ben, please watch the language. Second, please watch the sarcasm; I would never stoop to being sarcastic. I expected more from you!
Third, yeah, you really understood my argument, didn't you? I'm not saying that if you take the Joker character out of the film, it's not a great film anymore. That's not my point.
You would be correct to point out that any film is bad if you take out its most compelling characters; that's not my argument. I'm saying that the Joker character is actually not that great. Heath Ledger's performance of the character elevates it beyond what it would otherwise be.
The Joker in the script is kind of hokey and corny. The Joker that Heath Ledger creates—in spite of the film and the script—is compelling. I'll give you an example: One of the Joker's first lines in the film—I think his first line is "Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stranger.
" That is a bad line. That's just a bad line to have in it. That is not the kind of line you find in a cinematic masterpiece.
In fact, if that line is in your movie, it's not a masterpiece. I don't care what else happens; automatically, it's not a masterpiece. But Ledger managed to deliver that line in a way that disguised its corniness.
Compare this to, say, Vito Corleone in *The Godfather*. Obviously, Marlon Brando's performance in the role is legendary, but the character was so brilliantly written, and the film around him so incredible, that it would have still been a great film with another capable actor in the role. The same cannot be said of *The Dark Knight*; without that one performance—not the character, the performance—the film would not be remembered for anything.
Actually, also, the Joker is not the greatest villain in cinema history. That title belongs unquestionably to Anton Chigurh in *No Country for Old Men*. He is both more menacing and more interesting than the Joker.
There's not one scene in *The Dark Knight* that even comes close to matching even just the gas station scene in *No Country for Old Men*, and the Joker in *The Dark Knight* never had one line that matches Anton Chigurh's immortal question posed to Woody Harrelson's character: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule? ” So he conveyed the Joker's philosophy far more effectively and in a much more clever way than the Joker ever did. Look, we all know how a Christmas season goes these days.
The stores put up their decorations in October, corporations try to sell you on their version of holiday spirit, and before you know it, you're stressed out, overwhelmed, and completely missing the actual point of the season. That's why I want to talk to you about something actually meaningful: Advent. It's the sacred time before Christmas when we're supposed to prepare our hearts through prayer and reflection.
Let's be honest, though—between the shopping frenzies and social obligations, most of us are doing anything but that. That's exactly why I've partnered with Hallow for their Advent Pray 25 Challenge. I know what you're thinking: another app, another program.
But this isn't about checking boxes or following some corporate wellness trend. This is about reclaiming what Advent is actually supposed to be about. They put together their best Advent program yet, with daily guided prayer sessions, authentic Advent music—not the commercialized Christmas songs you'll hear at the mall in November—and content specifically designed to help you grow in your faith during this sacred season.
Right now, you can join me and thousands of others who are choosing to take back Advent from the chaos of modern Christmas. Just go to hallow. com/walsh to get started.
That's hallow. com/walsh. Let's actually prepare our hearts for Christmas this year instead of just our shopping carts.
How does the Joker wire an entire hospital with enough explosives to demolish it in 15 seconds without anyone noticing? This is a working hospital; people are in it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How did he wire the whole thing?
It's not even just like one part of it explodes—the whole thing is taken down! Wait, wait, that's his critique? His critique is like the practicality of wiring a building to explode?
I mean, yes, that's correct. Gotham City's a show. They have a literal insane asylum where they keep people, and every five minutes, people break out of the insane asylum.
Also, has he been to a hospital recently? They're not really all that well-run. I remember when my wife was in residency.
Yeah, man, not that I would have committed a criminal act like the Joker, but I don't feel like it would have been that hard. You know, think it'd be hard to wire the entire hospital to explode? Do you know how many explosives will be needed to blow up an entire hospital?
A [Applause] lot. I don't know exactly how much; I started to Google it, but then I realized that I might be putting myself on an FBI watch list with a Google search like that. Of course, I’m probably already on an FBI watch list.
In any case, this is a massive demolition project that would take many hours to complete. Even with lax security, it just isn't close to realistic. Now, I know you might say, “Well, it's a Batman movie; it's not supposed to be realistic.
” You can't have it both ways, Ben. You can't tell me that it's this gritty, mature, Oscar-worthy Batman film, but then also insist that it's just a silly superhero flick, so it doesn't matter if it's not believable. Which is it?
You can't just hide behind “Gotham City is a show. ” No, this movie is a show. The script is a show.
You, sir, are a show. Now, the movie hopes that you won't notice that problem because you'll be distracted by the moment in the hospital when the Joker shows up in Two-Face's room wearing a surgical mask and isn't noticed by Two-Face until he takes the mask off. But even with the mask on, you could still tell that he has white face paint and black paint around his eyes.
So how did Two-Face, the criminal genius, not notice that? Well, maybe it's because Two-Face isn't a criminal genius in this. He's a villain for about half a scene, and then he's dead.
It's like Christopher Nolan forgot to include Two-Face. They're about to put the movie out in like a week, and someone says, “Well, we forgot. We gotta put Two-Face in this thing.
” Oh yeah, then they got to go back. What are you talking about? That's the entire character arc!
Change anything in the movie at all? No! What?
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Stop it for a second.
Just stop it. That's so—oh my God, oh my God. The entire plot point in the film is that Two-Face is supposed to be a representation of the fallen state of humanity, right?
He goes from the hero to the villain, and the whole point is that all hopes for sort of cleanliness in Gotham City can be obliterated. If you have too much of an idealistic view about what humanity is—which is what Harvey Dent has for most of the movie—then you end up falling. Because once you fall, you really fall hard.
Oh, was that the message? Wow, how profound! You shut up.
Sometimes good people become bad people. Amazing! Christopher Nolan again demonstrating his profound understanding of the human condition with this insight that.
. . My 5-year-old daughter could offer, "Yes, I understand that Harvey Dent had an idealistic view of humanity and then ends up becoming everything he was fighting.
" Yes, I get that! How could I not get it? Nolan beats you over the head with that message over and over again.
The whole movie is just Christopher Nolan bashing you in the skull with a 2x4, screaming his philosophical ideas at you. Each character takes turns giving speeches for the entire movie. The whole movie is just one speech after another.
We freaking get it, okay? I get it! Now, the problem is that the characters spend so much time giving speeches that they forget to be actual characters.
Harvey Dent flips like a switch from super good guy to super bad guy with almost no runway in between. Not to mention those burns on his face would be fatal! He would not still be alive like that.
No, there’s just no way somebody survives having half of their head melted away! Nolan was so obsessed with having everything look realistic that he actually ended up with a Two-Face that was less realistic than the one from the cartoons. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Batman animated series from the '90s not only had a far superior Two-Face character but was, all around, in every way a superior product to Nolan's version.
Indeed, I would also say that the '90s cartoon Batman is the best thing Mark Hamill ever did. I can't think of a single other thing Mark Hamill starred in that would match the Batman cartoon. These are not just opinions that I'm coming up with right now on the spot to annoy you even more.
Or, if they are, I also think that they might be kind of true—potentially. Anyway, I think I've made my point. I don’t want to make the same mistake Christopher Nolan made in The Dark Knight by repeating myself over and over again.
I don't want this segment to run long like The Dark Knight did, with a punishing runtime of 2 and a half hours. There is no excuse for a movie about a superhero in a rubber costume running around doing karate against the bad guys to go longer than 85 minutes—90 minutes at the absolute most! Nolan only had 90 minutes of story; the additional hour consisted of each character delivering the State of the Union Address.
It's 90 minutes of story and an hour of speeches! That’s why I could even argue Batman Forever, starring Val Kilmer, was better than The Dark Knight. At least it got to the point much quicker, and it had a better Two-Face.
But the worst Two-Face of all is you, Ben! I am still in shock that after all this time working together, you would attack me so savagely. I'm both horrified and offended by this unprovoked assault, but more than that, I'm disappointed.
Your video was the most disappointing thing I've seen since The Dark Knight, and that is why both The Dark Knight and you, Ben Shapiro, are today canceled.
