Why so serious?
Husband and I went to see The Dark Knight last night: I was exhausted and exhilerated by the end, a bit overwhelmed by the multiple plot lines and vast number of action sequences. But I was blown away by the performances of everyone in the film, particularly (along with the rest of the known universe) by Heath Ledger as The Joker. His portrayal of a true psychotic sociopath was absolutely brilliant in its nuanced and incredibly fascinating physicality - you just can't take your eyes of off him. Having grown up with theatre all my life, I believe this is one of the finest peformances I've witnessed: every moment of his is true, everything he does has rich layers and you can see all of the cogs and wheels spinning in his twisted mind - and never for one second does the character resemble anything else that Ledger ever did before.
Two thoughts:
1.
elemess commented that he thought the movie was bleak, and not dark. It definitely wasn't sunshine and lollipops, but I'd still call it only dark - and NOT bleak - because of a single scene that I wasn't expecting which redeems humanity. I won't spoil it except to say that it involves a convict, a detonator, and a boat. Left me pleasantly surprised.
2. Husband and I both used to be avid readers of Salon.com, but it stopped being interesting a while ago, and I hadn't gone to the site in months. I was curious, though, how their main movie critic, Stephanie Zacharek, would approach the movie. I rarely agree with her - I think she's one of these movie critics who actually hates movies* - but every once in a while she touches on an introspective point that I find interesting. Well, her review of The Dark Knight solidifies my opinion that she's full of crap and I don't ever need to read another one of her reviews. I'll concede the point that the editing in this film is choppy. But "pretentious poot"? Pot, I've got kettle on line one.
So, yes, it's not a barrell of laughs - it's not as much "fun" as Iron Man (which I loved), but I still think it was an excellent movie because I got lost in it, and found myself reacting constantly, and have found much to think about in retrospect. Perfect? Far from it. But definitely worth it.
Oh yeah - one other thing - is anyone else still getting a kick out of Gary Oldman playing a morally upright and somewhat dowdy guy? I keep flashing back to him in The Professional and True Romance. Loved him in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but his career track seemed to be mainly on that of a sadistic whackjob. Nice to see him successfully playing against type.
---------
* In Entertainment Weekly there's always an interesting little chart showing the grades given to movies by numerous influential movie critics in the media - for some reason she's on it - and every single time if you just run your finger down her list of grades you'll see something like: C, C-, D, C-, C, B+. D, C-. I'm telling you, the woman hate movies.
.
Two thoughts:
1.
elemess commented that he thought the movie was bleak, and not dark. It definitely wasn't sunshine and lollipops, but I'd still call it only dark - and NOT bleak - because of a single scene that I wasn't expecting which redeems humanity. I won't spoil it except to say that it involves a convict, a detonator, and a boat. Left me pleasantly surprised.
2. Husband and I both used to be avid readers of Salon.com, but it stopped being interesting a while ago, and I hadn't gone to the site in months. I was curious, though, how their main movie critic, Stephanie Zacharek, would approach the movie. I rarely agree with her - I think she's one of these movie critics who actually hates movies* - but every once in a while she touches on an introspective point that I find interesting. Well, her review of The Dark Knight solidifies my opinion that she's full of crap and I don't ever need to read another one of her reviews. I'll concede the point that the editing in this film is choppy. But "pretentious poot"? Pot, I've got kettle on line one.
So, yes, it's not a barrell of laughs - it's not as much "fun" as Iron Man (which I loved), but I still think it was an excellent movie because I got lost in it, and found myself reacting constantly, and have found much to think about in retrospect. Perfect? Far from it. But definitely worth it.
Oh yeah - one other thing - is anyone else still getting a kick out of Gary Oldman playing a morally upright and somewhat dowdy guy? I keep flashing back to him in The Professional and True Romance. Loved him in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, but his career track seemed to be mainly on that of a sadistic whackjob. Nice to see him successfully playing against type.
---------
* In Entertainment Weekly there's always an interesting little chart showing the grades given to movies by numerous influential movie critics in the media - for some reason she's on it - and every single time if you just run your finger down her list of grades you'll see something like: C, C-, D, C-, C, B+. D, C-. I'm telling you, the woman hate movies.
.