Possibly the least popular post I'll ever make
So yesterday I went to see The Dark Knight with my nephew. I let him pick the movie and this is what he wanted - no big deal. Normally I probably wouldn't have bothered until it made it to DVD, maybe even until Warner sent my mom a free copy for Christmas or something. (This is how we acquired Batman Begins.)
I'm going to come right out and say it: for me, this movie did not live up to the hype surrounding it. Not even close. It's very hard for me to comprehend why people are falling all over themselves to heap praise on this film and watch it multiple times in theatres to propel it to its $400 million worldwide gross.
Where to begin... How about the first movie in the reboot, to lay some groundwork for my opinion? I did not see Batman Begins in the theatre. I only watched it after the free copy came to us. I didn't see the need for more movies, which would more or less be covering the same ground as the first four. Overall, I thought the movie was interesting, especially since it illustrated a sort of (let's say) alternate history for Bruce Wayne. On the whole, my reaction was largely "meh". Again, I did not understand what was supposed to be so great about the movie.
Moving forward to yesterday: When the movie started, there was much confusion for me about what was going on. I accepted the premise that the Joker was already around and operating. A little unusual, but I can live with it. Then there was the whole thing with the Scarecrow - I didn't quite follow that, what was going on or why we should care. I would need to see it again to figure this out.
I quickly remembered also why Begins didn't do much for me - Christian Bale's rendition of Batman. And specifically that godforsaken rasp of his. Whenever he was in the batsuit I had to concentrate hard on what he was saying. I get the need to alter his voice to protect his identity, but surely Lucius Fox would be able to provide Bruce Wayne with some sort of techno gadget from one of Wayne Enterprises' many divisions that could do something better? I mean, build it into the batsuit! I digress.
The story itself was pretty fair. The action was good - what I could follow, anyway. Those were hacked up so much after the trip through the editing room that by the time I figured out what I was seeing another three shots of the fight had already gone by. Actually, I noticed a lot of scenes throughout the movie ended abruptly. Like, really abrup.
I'm hoping that the two archvillain theme doesn't continue - it barely worked in Batman Forever and in the other two films it didn't really give you the chance to appreciate the villainy since you had two evildoers trying to out-evil the other. Although I'm not sure this is really a good example, since the whole Two Face rampage lasted about 25 minutes of screen time tacked on almost as an afterthought at the end of the movie. I consider this a shame. Two Face is one of the more interesting villains for me because of his origins. The scenario of how he was actually a creation of the Joker in yet another scheme of his seemed to take away from the character.
I don't think I can put it off any more - what would a review of The Dark Knight be without a commentary on the Joker himself?
In the TV commercials I saw for the movie (since I didn't watch any of the movie trailers online before the release) I said that Heath Ledger only seemed to be channeling Jack Nicholson in his portrayal of the near-penultimate Batman villain. Now that I've seen the movie, I humbly retract that assessment. Heath Ledger's performance was really quite brilliant. Everything from his posture, his movement, the measured licking of his lips, Ledger defined the character. He had some good material to work with too, namely how the Joker was more an agent of chaos than anything. He wasn't doing these things for his own sake, but rather to wreak havoc and try to bring the citizens of Gotham down.... I want to say to his level, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Certainly to grind down their moral standing some. It's just a shame that Ledger put so much into this role that it led to his death.
Is it an Oscar-worthy performance? I withhold judgment on that. Certainly it's one of the best pieces of acting I've seen in a while. And I should say it's not often I make note of the quality of acting in something... I think the last time I did was when I watched Gothika. Halle Berry quite simply carried that movie.
In summary: Fair movie. Would not pay to see it again in theatre, would consider buying it on DVD after it's been out for a couple of months and the price finally drops. Heath Ledger a plus, Christian Bale deserves a punch to the throat so he can see how annoying the rasp is in real situations. Morgan Freeman is a plus since he's one of my favourite actors. Does not deserve the 9.2 from 220,000 votes on IMDb. Overall: 6.5/10, owing heavily to the Joker.
Now, I've posted this just to share an opinion. Fortunately I don't think I have too many zealots on my f-list that will try to shout me down, like if I had posted this elsewhere in the series of tubes. I welcome a calm explanation about why the rebooted Batman movies are considered to be so fantastic since I'm not seeing it for myself. Insults can be taken elsewhere. Trolls can set themselves on fire instead. Thanks.
I'm going to come right out and say it: for me, this movie did not live up to the hype surrounding it. Not even close. It's very hard for me to comprehend why people are falling all over themselves to heap praise on this film and watch it multiple times in theatres to propel it to its $400 million worldwide gross.
Where to begin... How about the first movie in the reboot, to lay some groundwork for my opinion? I did not see Batman Begins in the theatre. I only watched it after the free copy came to us. I didn't see the need for more movies, which would more or less be covering the same ground as the first four. Overall, I thought the movie was interesting, especially since it illustrated a sort of (let's say) alternate history for Bruce Wayne. On the whole, my reaction was largely "meh". Again, I did not understand what was supposed to be so great about the movie.
Moving forward to yesterday: When the movie started, there was much confusion for me about what was going on. I accepted the premise that the Joker was already around and operating. A little unusual, but I can live with it. Then there was the whole thing with the Scarecrow - I didn't quite follow that, what was going on or why we should care. I would need to see it again to figure this out.
I quickly remembered also why Begins didn't do much for me - Christian Bale's rendition of Batman. And specifically that godforsaken rasp of his. Whenever he was in the batsuit I had to concentrate hard on what he was saying. I get the need to alter his voice to protect his identity, but surely Lucius Fox would be able to provide Bruce Wayne with some sort of techno gadget from one of Wayne Enterprises' many divisions that could do something better? I mean, build it into the batsuit! I digress.
The story itself was pretty fair. The action was good - what I could follow, anyway. Those were hacked up so much after the trip through the editing room that by the time I figured out what I was seeing another three shots of the fight had already gone by. Actually, I noticed a lot of scenes throughout the movie ended abruptly. Like, really abrup.
I'm hoping that the two archvillain theme doesn't continue - it barely worked in Batman Forever and in the other two films it didn't really give you the chance to appreciate the villainy since you had two evildoers trying to out-evil the other. Although I'm not sure this is really a good example, since the whole Two Face rampage lasted about 25 minutes of screen time tacked on almost as an afterthought at the end of the movie. I consider this a shame. Two Face is one of the more interesting villains for me because of his origins. The scenario of how he was actually a creation of the Joker in yet another scheme of his seemed to take away from the character.
I don't think I can put it off any more - what would a review of The Dark Knight be without a commentary on the Joker himself?
In the TV commercials I saw for the movie (since I didn't watch any of the movie trailers online before the release) I said that Heath Ledger only seemed to be channeling Jack Nicholson in his portrayal of the near-penultimate Batman villain. Now that I've seen the movie, I humbly retract that assessment. Heath Ledger's performance was really quite brilliant. Everything from his posture, his movement, the measured licking of his lips, Ledger defined the character. He had some good material to work with too, namely how the Joker was more an agent of chaos than anything. He wasn't doing these things for his own sake, but rather to wreak havoc and try to bring the citizens of Gotham down.... I want to say to his level, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Certainly to grind down their moral standing some. It's just a shame that Ledger put so much into this role that it led to his death.
Is it an Oscar-worthy performance? I withhold judgment on that. Certainly it's one of the best pieces of acting I've seen in a while. And I should say it's not often I make note of the quality of acting in something... I think the last time I did was when I watched Gothika. Halle Berry quite simply carried that movie.
In summary: Fair movie. Would not pay to see it again in theatre, would consider buying it on DVD after it's been out for a couple of months and the price finally drops. Heath Ledger a plus, Christian Bale deserves a punch to the throat so he can see how annoying the rasp is in real situations. Morgan Freeman is a plus since he's one of my favourite actors. Does not deserve the 9.2 from 220,000 votes on IMDb. Overall: 6.5/10, owing heavily to the Joker.
Now, I've posted this just to share an opinion. Fortunately I don't think I have too many zealots on my f-list that will try to shout me down, like if I had posted this elsewhere in the series of tubes. I welcome a calm explanation about why the rebooted Batman movies are considered to be so fantastic since I'm not seeing it for myself. Insults can be taken elsewhere. Trolls can set themselves on fire instead. Thanks.