Way-late movie review: THE DARK KNIGHT
I've already posted my topline on THE DARK KNIGHT. I loved it and planned on seeing it again. Now that I have, here's a more thorough discourse
The topline: THE DARK KNIGHT is a great successor to BATMAN BEGINS and continues the grounded franchise reboot that Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer and the cast of the first picture set up. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is superb. I know there will be Oscar talk. I wonder if that would be the case if he were still with us. It's a shame that a "comic book" movie has to have a lead cast member die before the Academy takes it seriously.
As was the case with BATMAN BEGINS and IRON MAN, and even THE INCREDIBLE HULK, the Renaissance of grounded superhero franchises continues with THE DARK KNIGHT. In the debris trail of the Bat-franchise destroyed by Schumacher, Bryan Singer's X-MEN pictures re-established the way a comic-book adaptation should be handled: take the fantastic premise and set it against the real world. Mutants exist among us - go! Nolan & Co. rebooted the Bat with a similar idea: take a guy with a tragic origin, and show how he gets to the point where he's willing to dress up like a bat and leap off of tall buildings. Set it in as realistic a world as you can, to keep the premise grounded and reinforce the humanity of the people in the story.
And it worked. Brilliantly, I thought. I still get chills at the end of BATMAN BEGINS with Lt. Gordon and Bats on the roof, as Gordon briefs Batman on the newest menace and turns over the playing card to reveal The Joker. The final exchange between the two:
GORDON: I never thanked you.
BATMAN: You'll never have to.
Perfect.
THE DARK KNIGHT picks up where BATMAN BEGINS left off, with Gotham's criminal underworld reeling from the impact the Caped Crusader has had over the intervening years. Wayne Manor is still being rebuilt. Bruce and Rachel Dawes (this time played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) are still divided by the masks that are central to Bruce's life. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) still runs Wayne's empire.
This time around, we meet Harvey Dent (Aaron "Thank You For Smoking" Eckhart) Gotham's crusading DA, and the town's clown-prince-of-crime The Joker. Everyone knows about Heath, his fearless performance, and his unfortunate death long before the film opened. The fact that this is Heath's first and only outing as The Joker has probably contributed to the overall box-office take.
There are a lot of people comparing Ledger to Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker in Burton's 1989 BATMAN. Inevitable, but unfair. The two men were each portraying different versions of the Joker. Nicholson's was closer to the classic comic-book portrayals, without bordering into Caesar Romero's realm of camp. Heath got to do something much different. By removing any pretense of origin and making The Joker a free-agent of Chaos incarnate, Heath was free to really run with it. And did he, ever. I loved his take on the Joker. Brilliant.
Oscar-worthy? Ask me when the ballots go out. I'd expect a nomination, but I would be surprised if he wins.
I've seen the picture twice, once in IMAX and once on a regular screen. If I have the time to see it on IMAX again, I certainly will. I didn't realize just how much was shot just for that format. The entire opening sequence, the big exterior sweeping shots of skyscraper skylines, etc. It looks amazing in the IMAX format, and I'd love to see it again.
I'd also settle for seeing it on a regular screen again. There's a lot going on, almost enough that you have to see it twice to sort it all out, but not quite. This time around, Nolan got a better grip on his shooting/editing of the fight scenes. You actually get to see Bats bust some heads (over-cutting was a criticism I had of the first picture). Some of the lines are almost too clipped, with very fast cuts afterward designed to get us onto the next scene quickly, but which may leave some people scratching their heads.
The only other criticism I had of the picture - and if you're reading this far you're no doubt expecting a few SPOILERS - was the way they handled Harvey's transformation into Two-Face. As with the Scarecrow in BATMAN BEGINS there was an effort to keep Harvey's origin and character grounded in some reality. However, the urge to create a really bitchin' visual effect went too far, in my opinion. The first picture was grounded enough that you at least had the plausibility of what you saw being explained by high tech, vast billionaire budgets, and really diligent martial arts training. Harvey's "other half" looks amazing, and is a fantastic visual effect that really pops on screen.
It just blows the pretense of reality. Nobody could live with half their head gone like Harvey's is gone post-explosion. Nobody. After spending all that time and effort to create a grounded world where you really believe a billionaire might so driven as to take his mad ninja skillz to dress like a bat and beat up criminals, to then blow it just for the sake of a kick-ass VFX shot... it took me out of the movie. I stopped and had to ask myself, "Could anyone live if their looked like that?"
The answer is no, of course, and it only served to remind me that I was watching a movie. Not that the illusion is ever complete, but anything that can take me out of the scene is a step too far.
Maggie does an admirable job of filling Katie Holmes' heels as Rachel. I picked on Katie for being the weak spot in casting of an otherwise solid cast in the first movie. This time I find myself wondering if it isn't more a matter of what they give this character to do. I love Maggie, but she didn't totally move me with that character the way I hoped she would. The fault may lie more with the material. It's not bad, but it's not that much to work with as an actress.
Okay, I've gushed enough. Now to answer a few of elessa's questions:
did batman cross the line and break his rule?
I don't think so. His rule was he wouldn't kill, which is what I think the scene with Eric Robert's gangster was all about. He knew that the only way to stop a man like the Joker would be to kill. Batman will not kill. He will mess you up pretty badly, though.
joker and the bus at the hospital.
Not sure what the question was. I presumed that he had his men positioned to hijack a bus, and that the one waiting for him was the one his men commandeered. The Joker's obviously got a lot of people on staff by this point, because it would take a week to smuggle and set all those explosives in an entire hospital.
also, the hong kong plane. how come no one questions who it is they have picked up? how does he get on and off the plane as batman?
I think this supposedly explained by Bruce's line about "South Korean smugglers." The implication being that they won't ask questions as long as you pay them enough. The bit about being on the plane as Bats is an interesting point; perhaps if you pay them enough and you're not punching their lights out, they're cool. Besides, Bats doesn't patrol Seoul.
does jim gordon have two daughters or only the adolescent one?
Excellent question. According to this picture, Gordon has two children: one boy, and presumably one girl. You'll notice the only Barbara they mention by name is Jim's wife, not their daughter whose face we barely see and whose head is down during the showdown at the charred warehouse. I think that was deliberate so we didn't fixate too much on seeing the future Batgirl as a kid.
where is reese?
Off hiding in a confessional booth at a church somewhere, saying all kinds of prayers thanking God that Bruce saved his smarmy ass. I'm okay with the way they left that. The Joker had moved on to other things, and the deadline had passed, presumably.
where is the other half of the money?
Another excellent question. I don't think they really say. Maybe he left it wherever Sam hid the stacks? Something to fuel the rest of the business with once The Joker takes over. They also don't address how the Joker got all that money back from Hong Kong so quickly, since I think that's where Sam says he's going to hide it. Sam may have also been lying about where he hid it; it could have just been on that boat all along. That's the trouble with crooks, you never can trust them.
oh! i also have a pretty good idea who the villain is for the next movie. there is an allusion towards the beginning of the movie as to who it shall be.
I noticed the cat line, too. I wasn't sure if that was a set-up or an homage. The Joker was pretty clearly set up by the end of BATMAN BEGINS. This is more of a wisp of a hint. Having said that, knowing that Bale's only contracted for one more Bat-picture, I wouldn't be surprised if Catwoman makes it into the next one. There are rumors online that Angelina Jolie is interested in doing something with a Catwoman take that ignores Halle's picture entirely. If they manage to nab her as Catwoman in the last Bale Batman picture... geekgasms for everyone.
The topline: THE DARK KNIGHT is a great successor to BATMAN BEGINS and continues the grounded franchise reboot that Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer and the cast of the first picture set up. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is superb. I know there will be Oscar talk. I wonder if that would be the case if he were still with us. It's a shame that a "comic book" movie has to have a lead cast member die before the Academy takes it seriously.
As was the case with BATMAN BEGINS and IRON MAN, and even THE INCREDIBLE HULK, the Renaissance of grounded superhero franchises continues with THE DARK KNIGHT. In the debris trail of the Bat-franchise destroyed by Schumacher, Bryan Singer's X-MEN pictures re-established the way a comic-book adaptation should be handled: take the fantastic premise and set it against the real world. Mutants exist among us - go! Nolan & Co. rebooted the Bat with a similar idea: take a guy with a tragic origin, and show how he gets to the point where he's willing to dress up like a bat and leap off of tall buildings. Set it in as realistic a world as you can, to keep the premise grounded and reinforce the humanity of the people in the story.
And it worked. Brilliantly, I thought. I still get chills at the end of BATMAN BEGINS with Lt. Gordon and Bats on the roof, as Gordon briefs Batman on the newest menace and turns over the playing card to reveal The Joker. The final exchange between the two:
GORDON: I never thanked you.
BATMAN: You'll never have to.
Perfect.
THE DARK KNIGHT picks up where BATMAN BEGINS left off, with Gotham's criminal underworld reeling from the impact the Caped Crusader has had over the intervening years. Wayne Manor is still being rebuilt. Bruce and Rachel Dawes (this time played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) are still divided by the masks that are central to Bruce's life. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) still runs Wayne's empire.
This time around, we meet Harvey Dent (Aaron "Thank You For Smoking" Eckhart) Gotham's crusading DA, and the town's clown-prince-of-crime The Joker. Everyone knows about Heath, his fearless performance, and his unfortunate death long before the film opened. The fact that this is Heath's first and only outing as The Joker has probably contributed to the overall box-office take.
There are a lot of people comparing Ledger to Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker in Burton's 1989 BATMAN. Inevitable, but unfair. The two men were each portraying different versions of the Joker. Nicholson's was closer to the classic comic-book portrayals, without bordering into Caesar Romero's realm of camp. Heath got to do something much different. By removing any pretense of origin and making The Joker a free-agent of Chaos incarnate, Heath was free to really run with it. And did he, ever. I loved his take on the Joker. Brilliant.
Oscar-worthy? Ask me when the ballots go out. I'd expect a nomination, but I would be surprised if he wins.
I've seen the picture twice, once in IMAX and once on a regular screen. If I have the time to see it on IMAX again, I certainly will. I didn't realize just how much was shot just for that format. The entire opening sequence, the big exterior sweeping shots of skyscraper skylines, etc. It looks amazing in the IMAX format, and I'd love to see it again.
I'd also settle for seeing it on a regular screen again. There's a lot going on, almost enough that you have to see it twice to sort it all out, but not quite. This time around, Nolan got a better grip on his shooting/editing of the fight scenes. You actually get to see Bats bust some heads (over-cutting was a criticism I had of the first picture). Some of the lines are almost too clipped, with very fast cuts afterward designed to get us onto the next scene quickly, but which may leave some people scratching their heads.
The only other criticism I had of the picture - and if you're reading this far you're no doubt expecting a few SPOILERS - was the way they handled Harvey's transformation into Two-Face. As with the Scarecrow in BATMAN BEGINS there was an effort to keep Harvey's origin and character grounded in some reality. However, the urge to create a really bitchin' visual effect went too far, in my opinion. The first picture was grounded enough that you at least had the plausibility of what you saw being explained by high tech, vast billionaire budgets, and really diligent martial arts training. Harvey's "other half" looks amazing, and is a fantastic visual effect that really pops on screen.
It just blows the pretense of reality. Nobody could live with half their head gone like Harvey's is gone post-explosion. Nobody. After spending all that time and effort to create a grounded world where you really believe a billionaire might so driven as to take his mad ninja skillz to dress like a bat and beat up criminals, to then blow it just for the sake of a kick-ass VFX shot... it took me out of the movie. I stopped and had to ask myself, "Could anyone live if their looked like that?"
The answer is no, of course, and it only served to remind me that I was watching a movie. Not that the illusion is ever complete, but anything that can take me out of the scene is a step too far.
Maggie does an admirable job of filling Katie Holmes' heels as Rachel. I picked on Katie for being the weak spot in casting of an otherwise solid cast in the first movie. This time I find myself wondering if it isn't more a matter of what they give this character to do. I love Maggie, but she didn't totally move me with that character the way I hoped she would. The fault may lie more with the material. It's not bad, but it's not that much to work with as an actress.
Okay, I've gushed enough. Now to answer a few of elessa's questions:
did batman cross the line and break his rule?
I don't think so. His rule was he wouldn't kill, which is what I think the scene with Eric Robert's gangster was all about. He knew that the only way to stop a man like the Joker would be to kill. Batman will not kill. He will mess you up pretty badly, though.
joker and the bus at the hospital.
Not sure what the question was. I presumed that he had his men positioned to hijack a bus, and that the one waiting for him was the one his men commandeered. The Joker's obviously got a lot of people on staff by this point, because it would take a week to smuggle and set all those explosives in an entire hospital.
also, the hong kong plane. how come no one questions who it is they have picked up? how does he get on and off the plane as batman?
I think this supposedly explained by Bruce's line about "South Korean smugglers." The implication being that they won't ask questions as long as you pay them enough. The bit about being on the plane as Bats is an interesting point; perhaps if you pay them enough and you're not punching their lights out, they're cool. Besides, Bats doesn't patrol Seoul.
does jim gordon have two daughters or only the adolescent one?
Excellent question. According to this picture, Gordon has two children: one boy, and presumably one girl. You'll notice the only Barbara they mention by name is Jim's wife, not their daughter whose face we barely see and whose head is down during the showdown at the charred warehouse. I think that was deliberate so we didn't fixate too much on seeing the future Batgirl as a kid.
where is reese?
Off hiding in a confessional booth at a church somewhere, saying all kinds of prayers thanking God that Bruce saved his smarmy ass. I'm okay with the way they left that. The Joker had moved on to other things, and the deadline had passed, presumably.
where is the other half of the money?
Another excellent question. I don't think they really say. Maybe he left it wherever Sam hid the stacks? Something to fuel the rest of the business with once The Joker takes over. They also don't address how the Joker got all that money back from Hong Kong so quickly, since I think that's where Sam says he's going to hide it. Sam may have also been lying about where he hid it; it could have just been on that boat all along. That's the trouble with crooks, you never can trust them.
oh! i also have a pretty good idea who the villain is for the next movie. there is an allusion towards the beginning of the movie as to who it shall be.
I noticed the cat line, too. I wasn't sure if that was a set-up or an homage. The Joker was pretty clearly set up by the end of BATMAN BEGINS. This is more of a wisp of a hint. Having said that, knowing that Bale's only contracted for one more Bat-picture, I wouldn't be surprised if Catwoman makes it into the next one. There are rumors online that Angelina Jolie is interested in doing something with a Catwoman take that ignores Halle's picture entirely. If they manage to nab her as Catwoman in the last Bale Batman picture... geekgasms for everyone.