As the opening date for "The Dark Knight" got closer and closer, I realized that there was really no other movie in my lifetime I was looking forward to seeing as much as this one.I wasn't obsessed with "Star Wars", so I wasn't one of those (ultimately disappointed) people who camped out at theatres showing "The Phantom Menace" months before the movie's release.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realized just how much I wanted to see this movie. I LOVED director and co-writer Christopher Nolan reboot of the Batman franchise and the way he took it in a simultaneously more realistic and more exciting direction. If that movie had weak links (Katie Holmes and slightly underwhelming action sequences) this movie promised to correct them. The origin story was out of the way (leaving room for more action) and the entire (excellent) cast from "Batman Begins" was coming back, with Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Holmes and the addition of Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart as the Joker and Harvey Dent, respectively. I mean, wow.
So it's no surprise that "The Dark Knight" absolutely delivers across the board. It delivers as an action movie, as a comic book flick, as a drama, and even as a social commentary.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne whose crime-fighting alter-ego teams up Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) to take down Gotham City's organized crime. Batman has also inspired a rash of costume-wearing copycats to take the law into their own hands.
Unfortunately, he's also inspired at least one criminal to step up his game in the person of the Joker (Heath Ledger), during the opening sequence, a clever robbery featuring a weirdly overqualified William Fichtner as a bank manager.
Let's just get this out of the way now — Ledger is absolutely brilliant as the Joker. It's not really fair to compare his take of the character to past interpretations, namely Jack Nicholson in Tim Burton's "Batman". Burton's movie was more stylized and comic book-y, while Nolan's is darker and serious. Each actor's portrayal was in accordance to the movie they're in.
As a result, Ledger's Joker is truly frightening in that he brings an air of anarchy and unpredictability to the character — you feel like this guy can do or say anything at any time, giving all of his scenes excellent tension. Ledger is also incredibly charismatic, making you laugh, even as you're about to fall off the edge of your seat. Ledger's performance is so good and involving, he makes you forget, at least for 152 minutes, about the actor's tragic fate. While scenes like the pencil trick and the instances where he explains where he got his scars will get most of the attention, I was just as impressed by his (relatively) subtler moments, like his interrogation scene and when he convinces Dent not to kill him.
Speaking of Dent, I was pleasantly surprised into how much he figured into this movie's plot. I had assumed the Joker would be the main attraction, with Dent's story mostly being set up for a future movie, but it's actually the Joker who's mostly causing trouble in the periphery while Batman teams up with Dent, Gotham's White Knight, who represents hope for the city and Batman himself. Ledger will get most of the attention, but I thought Eckhart was pretty great. He wholly embodied Dent's goodness without making him seem like a total Boy Scout, and even hinting at the character's darker side.
Bale, as always, is very good. As in "Begins", I enjoyed watching him play Bruce Wayne (now a snobby, A-hole billionaire) than I do Batman, but he brought great intensity to his few scenes with the Joker, in which the latter suggests they're not so different.
The director also upgraded the action sequences from the first movie. I like that Nolan favors smart set-ups and execution (the opening bank robbery) and slam-bang stunt work (a chase through Gotham's streets) over relying mostly on CGI.
With so much going on, the supporting cast was bound to get the short end of the stick. I'd say the lone exception was Gary Oldman as Gordon, who I was delighted to see receive much more screen time. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are complete pros and make more out of their scenes with Bruce Wayne (both have natural chemistry with Bale) than most other actors could.
Since Maggie Gyllenhaal was the one weak link, I realized the problem in "Begins" wasn't so much Katie Holmes as much as it was the character of Rachel Dawes — she comes off as too self-righteous (why is she always lecturing Wayne?) and is just downright annoying and not that likable. It would've been nice if the director and co-writer Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer could've come up with a female character we cared about (especially one who allegedly is so important to our hero). I also couldn't always follow what was going on in the plot (though this is most likely due to the fact that I'm not very smart) and they probably could've skipped the trip to China.
Still, I can't be too hard on them, because there's so much more going on in this flick. It's certainly the most ambitious (in its scope, in its ideas) movie about a guy who runs around in tights. Fortunately, Nolan stops the movie just short of feeling too busy (ala "Spider-Man 3").
While "The Dark Knight" is not a perfect film, it's the best superhero movie I've ever seen. It makes even REALLY GOOD superhero films like "Iron Man" and "Spider-Man 2," look like fluff. It's also one of the best movies you'll see this year.
The Dark Knight...A-
5 comments:
I need to see this again but on IMAX. I think for what this film tried to do and did successfully, it absolutely rocked.
There are some issues - I think the Two Face plot was a bit hurried, though not necessarily under-developed. It's sort of difficult because I realize it was necessary to have his White Knight story arc as a parallel to the character of Batman's Dark Knight. And what's up with Michael Caine's metaphorically fantastical dialogue? The answer he gives to Rachel when she comes to him after a certain press conference best illustrates this. I don't need to be hit with the movie's major themes every time he's on screen; I can figure that out. Still, he's Michael Caine (therefore rocks), and he had "chemistry" with whoever he was with on screen.
I also had some issues with pacing, with certain plot points contributing (like Gary Oldman's). Still, this wasn't handled poorly, on the contrary. But it could've been smoother. Also, Nolan could still direct better action scenes (especially hand-to-hand)...though the Batpod action scene with the Joker was very memorable.
The biggest compliment is that the film maintained an emotionally dense denoument even after a certain climax happened with like 40-60 minute still left. Even with the above issues, the total package was far better than the sum of its parts. All the major performances were more than solid (including Rachel's, especially her climactic scene with Dent. Also, I can write pages on the brilliance of Ledger's Joker). By the end the whole experience was emotionally and psychologically draining, but in the best way possible - one that leaves you thinking about the movie and its themes for days.
Can't wait to see it again.
- Bishoy
I think "psychologically draining, but in the best way possible" is a pretty great way to describe the movie.
I didn't talk about the Two-Face thing in the review because I'm paranoid about giving away spoilers, but I agree that the Two-Face side of things (mostly when he becomes Two-Face) was a little rushed. I know it served the movie's story about how the Joker succeeded in turning the White Knight evil, but I still would've preferred to see the Two-Face character get more space to breathe.
I don't mind that the hand-to-hand combat scenes are a bit muddled. I think Nolan shoots them that way intentionally because fighting Batman in a dark space in close quarters would be confusing and wouldn't necessarily "look cool."
I think Caine and Freeman probably had one really good scene between the two of them...the one where Freeman reponds to Coleman Reese's blackmail attempt. Other than that, they pretty much coasted on their charm, I think.
I also agree the movie was rushed, and there were also a few times where something a little too convenient happened just to advance the plot. I'm thinking of the scene where Batman goes after Rachel, the cops go after Dent and they leave the Joker alone with that one cop back at the station. Why in the world would you leave the Joker alone with one officer with a bad temper and an open door. Why wouldn't you just leave him alone in the interrogation room? (Obviously, the answer is because, if he was left alone in the interrogation room, then there's no way he can escape). And what about the Honk Kong sequence? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to grab that Lao guy at his house, instead of breaking into his building where he's surrounded by a dozen security guys. (Well, the answer is, Batman had to take the guy in his office so that Bat sonar technology could be introduced).
As I said in the review, I think this is an excellent movie that I'll definitely be watching again, but I also think people need to calm themselves down from this "best movie ever" talk. (Don't tell anyone, but I still like "Batman Begins" better).
Thanks for reading
Oh, and I almost forgot...we'll have to agree to disagree about Rachel. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is a really good actress, but I don't think she was any better than Katie Holmes in this movie. I saw little-to-no chemistry between her and Eckhart/Dent and Rachel is, by far, the weakest character in this series (which is not good considering how important she is to the protagonists).
I can see what you're saying about Rachel as a character. Most of her background (what was there anyway) was developed in the first movie and she was more or less a plot device in TDK (on retrospective analysis ::raises nerd glasses::)
As long as we agree it's not Gyllenhal's fault.
Also, I'm probably one of the few people that really didn't see fault with Holme's performance in the first movie. Just putting that out there.
As far as Hong Kong...I always liked the title "Batman: In China" but that probably doesn't spell $500 million at the box office. Either Batman REALLY needed to get Lao back AT THAT MOMENT or maybe he was factoring crossing time zones. Who knows?
The Joker left alone in the office I didn't mind so much. It was just an "in the heat of the moment" thing that Batman had to go and do his thing. Maybe it could've been smoother, but I didn't really mind it. Honestly I think Gordon's plot device was the one that was more than convenient.
Don't know about "Begins" being better though. I don't know if it's some kind of superhero movie law, but the first movie always seems constricted by having to tell the origin story, and we're left with frothy anticipation of a sequel that will open up the world, the characters, the drama, and everything. Besides, "Begins" had some pretty weak villains too. I mean Ledger alone I think makes TDK instantly better. That he was actually menacing and not campy or weak, coupled with the movie's constant tension and emotion (despite all its faults and/or shortcomings) makes it more memorable than the first one. Not knocking "Begins," it's still one hell of a mature origin story and film, but it was no more than the appetizer course at points and at most a satisfying if light meal.
That being said, I DID order "Begins" as soon as it came on Blu-ray, and will be doing the same for TDK.
No, I'm not saying it's Gyllenhaal's fault at all. In fact, after seeing her portray Rachel and still not liking the character, I realized two things: 1. Katie Holmes really wasn't bad in "Begins" because 2. Nolan and his co-writers failed to deliver on the Rachel character.
I can see what you're saying about the Joker interrogation room scene and leaving in the heat of the moment, but I still think it would've been pretty easy to just close the door behind you on your way out. Sometimes I'm a little late for work and in a hurry, but I still manage to close and lock the door behind me (that's a totally comparable situation to the scenario in the movie).
I hear what you're saying about "Begins", but I still like it more than "TDK". "TDK" will probably go down as the better film overall, but I think that's mostly because there was so much more going on and it was trying to achieve SO much more than "Begins" and mostly succeeded.
In my opinion, "Begins" is MUCH more focused and cohesive than "TDK" and probably the best of the "superhero origin" movies which can often be a snooze.
I agree with you that Ledger CLEARLY gives the best performance out of either movie, but I don't agree that the villains in "Begins" were exactly weak. I mean, they were literally weak (Scarecrow gets taken out by Batman's girlfriend and a taser, which was hilarious), but I thought the characters were pretty interesting. I think Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson were REALLY good in the first one.
If the villains seemed weak it was because of the nature of the story. The city wasn't ready for anyone like Batman and he dominated. If you think about "TDK" that's not the case at all. Whereas Batman was a nearly invincible ninja in "Begins", in "TDK" a dog messed him up pretty decently, and he actually got beat up a few times. So what I'm saying is that I don't think it was so much that the villains were weak in the first one, just that Batman was a lot stronger (he wasn't yet as weary as he was in "TDK").
And if you want to talk about it from an acting standpoint, I'll give you Ledger (obviously) and I thought Eckhart was very, very good, but I would say that Bale, Freeman and Caine were MUCH better in the first one. I'd also say Oldman may have been better in "Begins" (with a lot less screentime) and I'd even also take Holmes over Gyllenhaal.
Post a Comment