Movie Review - 'The Dark Knight'
Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 3:24PM The Dark KnightStarring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, and Michael Caine
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Rated PG-13
The unvarnished truth is
that
The Dark Knight has more characters that it
doesn't need than characters it needs, which means it has more scenes than
it should, more storylines to conclude than we're all that interested in,
and it all takes too long to get there. It has one of the silliest gadget
gimmicks I've ever seen in a superhero movie, it has some third act
problems, and for a while, Bruce Wayne (Christian
Bale) appears to have a cameo in his own movie.
But The Dark Knight also has Heath Ledger as The Joker, which is not only reason enough to see the film but is also a justifiable excuse to fall in love with the movies all over again.
The sequel to 2005's Batman Begins opens with a bank heist, and the thugs sound like hoodlums from a two-bit gangster picture, except for one of them who takes off his mask to reveal a scarred face garishly painted like Priscilla Presley. Or maybe it's supposed to be a clown.
"I believe," he croaks in an unsettling, wavering voice, "what doesn't kill you...only makes you stranger." And a stranger sight we've never seen than this Joker, a man bent on anarchy, who wants to hurl Gotham City into chaos and lay the blame at the feet of Batman.
In the first Tim Burton Batman film, the one that made these event movies profitable and artistically involving, we saw how Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) became The Joker. Since he's the best, most unpredictable villain in the entire comic book universe, having that explanation, that origin story, makes sense. You won't get that here. The Joker is like an earthquake in the middle of Kansas, a force of nature you could never account for, one that just exists to destroy, to "watch the world burn" as Batman's trusty assistant Alfred puts it. And because we don't know where he's from or who he is, it becomes harder to understand why he takes the actions he does, which makes him all the more frightening.
Meanwhile, a new District Attorney has been elected in Gotham. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is an incorruptible servant of the people, vowing to rid the city of the influence of the mob, which, coincidentally, is also on the agenda of The Joker. Dent becomes the number two target for The Joker, right behind the caped crusader. Caught in the middle is assistant DA Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is in love with Dent and is Bruce Wayne's oldest friend (in the past, she was something more). Strangely, director Christopher Nolan has had nearly five hours over two Batman movies to convince us of Rachel's importance, and he has failed to make an overly compelling case. She seems obligatory, not mandatory. The series would move along just fine without her.
The supposed Rachel relevance isn't the only issue I found with Nolan's handling of The Dark Knight. At times, the editing is suspect, as if we're seeing just enough of the action to get the gist of it, and certain scenes feel so short you wonder why they're in the movie at all. There are no fewer than four mob bosses to take into account, a rogue Wayne Enterprises employee who thinks he knows more than he should, and a reporter for whom we're supposed to feel compassion. That's in addition to the six primary characters we're supposed to follow. There's a fun to watch but utterly pointless sequence of events in Hong Kong, and it exploits how little Nolan has left for weapons and technology specialist Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to do. It is good to see the growth of Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), who is filling the requirements of Batman's sidekick without needing a Robin suit.
But wait a minute: Isn't this supposed to be the movie about Batman and The Joker? Exactly.
Ledger's performance is so overpowering and addictive that part of me didn't like the serve and volley approach The Dark Knight used for about an hour: Three minutes of Batman, three minutes of Joker, then three more minutes of Batman. The subplot with Harvey Dent, while explained in a way that makes intellectual sense even if its character arc feels crammed into too small a space, also drives a wedge between the irresistible force and the immovable object, a reference made by The Joker late in the film that could have been more obvious without all the clutter.
Some will argue that Ledger's performance is over the top. Others will correctly identify that he's portraying The Joker, and that there is no top for that character to go over. It truly is a role that has no rules, and yet Ledger has found a pulse for the character that is irrevocably human: He's the worst of us. The Dark Knight is without question better when he's on screen; the dialogue is better, the action more tense, and the stakes noticeably higher. All the other stuff makes this film a flawed thing of greatness.
Is The Dark Knight a masterpiece? No. If you're expecting it to be a masterpiece, you'll think it is no matter how long we could debate it, because you've already sold yourself on the idea. But this film has too much excess to be perfect. Is it entertaining? Hell yeah, and it's better the second time around, at least it was for me.
Could it have been more? Definitely, and really, all it needs is a lot less.
Reader Comments (20)
Too bad. I really had no objections to Nolan's first two films. Batman Begins was a Batman de luxe movie, but ultimately just a Batman movie. The Prestige was good but it felt like it had no passion. What we're now hearing is that Nolan is becoming sloppy with his story-telling and editing. I really wish that he would go back to where he was with Insomnia and continue from there on.
That's a shame really. When I recently watched Batman Begins, I felt like it was totally missing something.
With the second act, it sounds like it might be suffering from a tiny bit spideritis 3.
I was just checking showtimes here in Las Vegas and couldn't help but notice that there is a midnight screening of Space Chimps at the Regal Red Rock...
Did I miss something?
Check it out here....REDROCK SHOWTIMES!
Also, the 3:25 am showing just sold out...I didn't see this kind of madness with any of the Star Wars prequels. And definitely not Spiderman.
Oddly, the 12:01 screening of Space Chimps still has plenty of tickets available...
I have to completely disagree. While a few of the scenes were not completely necessary, like traveling to china and what-not, we did need to get a little piece of Batman before the Joker. I don't really think I could stand one more Batman-Joker confrontation. I agree with the comment about Rachel, that she doesn't do much herself, but at the same time, without her Harvey Dent would have no reason to turn into what he did. I think the entire meaning behind the movie came out pretty clearly in the end, and it was a fantastic movie in my opinion. Heath Ledger's performance made me feel even more terrible that he has passed on since he was PHENOMENAL! They really did play up his joker attitude and need to destroy and he did a wonderful job as the joker, creepy yet humorous and thought-provoking. This movie really explored inner conflict with each of its characters, wow, I think I might be obsessed.
This is what I mean about Rachel being obligatory, though: It's not like Harvey Dent originally turned into Two-Face because of Rachel; her first appearance anywhere was in Batman Begins. She's only the films. So why not just use some of the actual Harvey Dent origin story instead? Because I've got a feeling if we took a poll and asked people to rank their least favorite character in this series, she'd get the most votes.
I think Rachel served as an anchor for Bruce in the first movie. I dont know if we could've necessarily done without her. The first movie was about Bruce Wayne's transformation from human to a human in a cape...he was taking on a whole 'nother identity, another persona. Humans are complex enough as it is i think (most of us anyway), and i think why superheroes are so intriguing is because they have an extra facet to deal with that regular humans don't. In the first movie Bruce Wayne was transformed, and I think (though Alfred provided this), Rachel was essential in keeping him tied to his roots. She was a symbol that no matter who he becomes, he will always be Bruce Wayne. Not just billionaire extraordinaire Bruce Wayne, but Bruce Wayne who had a childhood, a human, who had a past...and a past that should not be forgotten just because you're hiding behind someone else's mask. Though I was extremely unhappy with the whole Katie Holmes ordeal in Batman Begins, I was pretty content with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Yep. My two cents...
I agree with everything you said--but I had a possible advantage, in that I saw the movie with rabid Bat-geeks at a 12:01 IMAX screening in Seattle, mere steps away from the Space Needle. As a good chunk of the movie (I'd say at least a fifth) was shot in the detail and aspect ratio of IMAX, it made the movie a thoroughly absorbing experience for us. I was especially surprised at how well close-ups could work in the dimensions of IMAX. Only on the way home did I wonder what happened to that Wayne Enterprises accountant or why we needed to go to Hong Kong. (Even a character in the movie observes, "A simple phone call would have sufficed.") But as a smiling model once observed, "Love that Joker!" I could only compare him to Anton Chigurh, certainly not any previous Joker, and his machinations made the movie feel more like Seven than Iron Man.
Interesting how Chigurh plays into all this. The coin-flipping, although it's always there in Harvey Dent's story, seemed so familiar during Dark Knight.
what are you talking people??? why he went to hong kong??? to bring back the chinese guy !!!! lucius put the cellphone, batman got an image of everything in the building and he was able to capture the chinese!!!.
I should probably move this to the new forum, but...I know what happened in the Hong Kong scenes, I just don't know why Nolan felt it belonged in his movie. I am looking forward to the inevitable extended director's cut to see it in a more epic context, though.
Less mobsters, more Joker. That's all I'm saying about that.
Did somebody miss something? Was there a point in him going to Hong Kong? I guess not if you don't take into account the fact that the "glorified accountant" hid the mob's money, was captured by Bruce Wayne and placed in County (Gotham). The scene where Joker sets fire to that big mound of money? Yea, I think it was slightly necessary. Joker finds the "accountant", gets his money, therefore he attains the power of the mob, only to destroy the power (money). It played into the storyline beautifully, because throughout the film, everything the good guys attempted to do was turned around and molded into Joker's masterplan........My take anyways!
Easy. Nolan includes Hong Kong because China Is The Future. Ha ha ha ha hee hee hoo hee hooo...!
Well, yes, Kevin, that's what happened. But I have to disagree with you that the money was important. Sure as hell wasn't to The Joker, anyway. The Joker could've found his power any number of ways, and I think the story would've flowed better if it didn't have to involve China, the accountant, Coleman Reese, the Russian mob, and Eric Roberts and his amazingly healing ankles.
People such as this reviewer have the same problem with all the movies i love. they think movies should be these hour and a half things. Now maybe these peoples bladders have issues or maybe they have no attention span(humerous considering i have ADD) but i love long movies now i will admit that sometimes length for lengths sake is bad but this movie did not feel that way to me and many other movies i watch feel way to short
Remember that in Hong Kong, they introduced the Cell Phone Sonar technology. They certainly could've introduced it somewhere else, and I think the way they use it later in the movie is entirely unrealistic (then again, which superhero movies aren't?), but I think it was effective to instill some action along with that development. So they got the Chinese guy, so he could turn in all the mobsters, so that Harvey Dent could be looked up to and trusted, which makes the counterpoint of his betrayal against the city feel more devastating. Some of it excessive? Yes. Unnecessary? I'd argue not entirely. Everything tied up for the ultimate end, even if it was tied somewhat loosely. I think the movie overall was incredibly realistic and the Joker - both as a character and from Heath's performance - was the embodiment of our most morbid thoughts. Incredibly thought-provoking. The fact of the "excessive" storylines kind of leads up to the ultimate resolution, quite similar to reality, if you want my opinion.
Colin, in response to your comment. I agree there are other ways the Joker could've attained his power. However, money is what the world revolves around (especially the Mob), and among other things it was a powerful symbol for just how dedicated the Joker was to his theory of "Chaos". It showed that his lifestyle was in no way influenced by money or power, it was simply to watch the world burn. Lastly, the saying "money is the root of all evil" is very significant. If money is the root of all evil and the Joker is obviously corrupted, then how much more evil is he when he burns the money? He's like the root of the root of evil, haha. Bottom line, great movie.
actually kevin, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil... but yeah, i agree with you :)
I have to disagree about the visit to Hong Kong being unnecessary. Isn't that where they tested the sonar that was based from the cell phone? Not to mention that it proved how Batman's limits were unknown. If they were targets, he was going to catch them. If the chinese guy just showed up, then we lose all of that and the aesthetics of the drop in and lift out.