Movie Review - 'The Dark Knight'

The Dark Knight

Starring 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.

Comments

[Henry Oak]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[Will]

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.

[McQ]

Oddly, the 12:01 screening of Space Chimps still has plenty of tickets available...

[Tori]

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.

[Get The Big Picture]

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.

[lilith]

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...

[Carv]

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.