My 'The Dark Knight' Review SPOILERS

[Gotham Knight]

SPOILERS AHEAD

The Dark Hype

Last Sunday night I found myself pacing around my home in a slightly panicked confusion. I had just seen The Dark Knight, the most talked about comic book film in history. I was not confused with anything in the film but rather I had no clue why a movie as widely praised (with a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) by critics (critics who aren?t going to tdk?s altar are having their reputations and emails eviscerated by crazed fan boys and girls, no really) and as built up in hype as it truly was could be such an epic let down.

Don?t get me wrong, I didn?t hate the dark knight, but my overall estimation of the film suffers greatly because of how hyped up this movie was and how still people across the country, including Roger Ebert, are lapping up this under whelming film in handfuls. I?m not angered by anything...just confused. If you could only see the bewildered look on my face even now as I write this review. I?m still scratching my head. Did I miss something?

Now you?re probably already thinking, ?Wait a second Mike, you?re a Burtonite. I knew you weren?t going to like this movie better than Burton?s. Why should this come as a surprise??

My answer is simply that yes, while I am a hard and heavy Burtonite, I had no intention of criticizing the overall portrayal of the Batman, I?ve already said before that I set that aside, realizing, even back when the first Nolan film came out, that while I don?t care for what they make of him, its as valid as anything else and worth walking out of the theatre with your head held high over it and I did (both times.) If you recall my review of BB gave it a B+ (points taken away for sloppy and over used exposition.)

After my first viewing I became clinically depressed. I was torn?mixed up. I?d never been this 50/50 on a Batman movie before. But of course with a second viewing, I was less impacted by my disappointment and the scales shifted more 65/35?favoring the negative column.

Heath Ledger is the only exciting thing about this movie. My heart races with anticipation and excitement when he works his magic. The brilliance of his performance comes, I think, from Ledger simply lowering his inhibitions, letting loose, falling into the character, and letting the chips fall where they may (this method reminds me of another actor who?s casting in a Batman film caused considerable controversy.) No matter how much he may or may not differ from what you feel the Joker ought to be the performance simply grows on you and that is a gift you can?t buy. He had it. Something other key players are missing or as with Freeman, Oldman, and Caine, simply aren?t trying anymore. Ledger will be sorely missed.

I?ve neglected to mention o?l Two-Face in the excitement category?alright?he was?but I have issues. He was definitely fun to see, however, while I find it a vast improvement over Tommy Lee, I?d hardly say it blew me away aside from the AWSOME disfigurement. My ?meh? feelings about it come mostly from, pardon the pun, two places. The first point is mostly nitpicking and shouldn?t be taken for anything more than that. The second is more serious. One, (nitpick) I love Harvey getting the chance to have an entire film to stretch his wings and distinguish himself as a major player and not just scenery with subtle hints of importance. However, while the film succeeds in playing up how ?golden boy? he is as a new shining symbol and on the other hand how frustrated he can be, the charm he exhibits with Dawes and others seems to be forced and unnatural. Two, (serious) while the death of Dawes and morbid disfigurement is enough to impact a man already harboring a nasty temper to shades of insanity, the concept lost me when he decides that rather than going after The Joker, he?ll go after the police elements that were involved after a single unconvincing conversation with the clown prince of crime where he literally has a gun pointed at Joke?s head. I give them props for the ?coin? gag??tails you die!??I squealed like a girl?I admit it?but after a brief and unimpressive chat? Rushed anyone? For a film that was extremely thorough for the last hour and fifty minutes or so, this sudden gear change into a turbo half thought segue into the final acts was too obvious and it hurt the build up of the character. Doesn?t destroy everything they did, but damn close.

I spoke earlier of Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine not trying anymore. Caine still manages to be thoughtful sounding when he wings it but it still shows. Freeman and Caine act like what they are, know it alls that gently propel the main character (Bats) to move the plot and they treat it like they?re narrating something on the History Channel. Not that Mr. Fox really had anywhere else to go with the set up in BB, but I expected more out of Alfred than him simply being Batman?s emotions because Bale won?t do anything but narrow his eyebrows to emote anything (the characters stoic, I get it, but he could still?act or something?)

Time for a confession. I didn?t say much about Rachel Dawes in the last film. That?s because I was waiting?waiting to see where Gyllenhaal?s casting took it, holding off what I had known more or less before ever going to see TDK. That is that you can?t polish garbage. Rachel Dawes is a weak character in her very conception. She?s supposed to be the strong idealist that whose strength ultimately and directly inspires Bruce outside his parent?s example. In BB it failed to go over with me because they forced her influence on Wayne into a single lecture and bits of over exposition (she was the source of a lot of that) but I got the idea and I ran with it anyway cause the movie was awesome (it was easy to let a lot slide in BB.) She?s also got to be the girl on the wire and does both but can?t really hold her own in the cast, and I thought that was Katie Holmes? fault until I saw TDK. Gyllenhaal is good, but they really don?t know what to do with the character(so of course you murder her off for effect.) First she?s totally in love with Harvey, then conflicted, then back in love, then stealing kisses with Bruce, then dead set on marrying Harvey. Then they kill her to help facilitate Harvey?s transformation. I?ve never been so unmoved by a principle character?s death. It was like a watching a piece of dog fluff incinerate.  I was sad for Harvey, but, particularly when Bale is barely phased by it and really just goes through the motions of giving a sh*t, I completely forget she?s dead along with Wayne, who doesn?t mention her again until film is over?though admittedly I?m having difficultly remembering if in fact he does mention her again.

Now we come to the Bat. I?ve dreaded this part of the review. Here...we?go! (Had to do it. You owned, Heath) Other than a knock out start, Batman bores me to tears. It?s hard to describe it. He goes through the motions but scarcely achieves anything beyond what any cop willing to go beyond his badge a little could do (Interrogation room, etc), say like Dirty Harry but with less pizzazz and ten times the gravel. He also doesn?t do much but hack through street thugs every hour or so before the big finale where he gets mauled by a dog. I mean, sure, as Bruce he hams it up for his alibi admirably, but when he?s ?the true Bruce? around Fox, Dawes, or Alfred, they really lead the scenes for him because he monotones his way through everything as uninterestingly as possible. Even Val Kilmer gave you something to work with besides ?mumble mumble? stoic determination ?mumble mumble.? He just doesn?t bring it this time. He cakewalked it. The aesthetics of his character didn?t help either. The suit was practical in realism but lacked any menace at all that it?s BB predecessor had in spades. It?s just a battle suit with a mask. No feeling?nothing.

Now we come to the story itself. I think this movie was extremely boring. Now, you might be thinking, hey wait a sec Mike, comic book films need depth and thoughtful story telling and not just a bunch of action scenes strung together if they are to be truly entertaining and transcend the genre. You are absolutely right. But, they also need to balance it so the hero doesn?t end up doing little else than hacking through people the same way over and over again and rolling around on a motorcycle. It didn?t up the anti of the first one outside the joker?s random violence. Compiled with the contrived ?two boat bomb trigger finale? that shamelessly tries to rub how much Gotham citizens have learned in my face like a cheep crime suspense version of a Sesame Street Special about doing the right thing, it caused me to yawn?a lot?when I wasn?t rolling my eyes at the Con chucking the trigger out the window in a display of over dramatization of Nolan?s message. It just didn?t beat ninjas, drug crazed citizens, and a crazy monorail. Sure, that lacked a direct message beyond FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, but it was more fun. When Batman punches a thug for the thousand time am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that THIS time his eyes are glowing. Come on?where is the pop culture and the 30?s pulp aura that Batman is so richly lacking in this movie.

Now, the story IS good. Holy multiple personalities Mike, you were just saying negative things about it. Don?t get me wrong. The story is a solid crime drama. It?s just not a great Batman story. And THAT?S what I came for. I can run with this story as long as there isn?t a guy with pointy ears and cape running around too. Too much focus is paid to Sal Maroni (smartly portrayed by the better Roberts in that family, love ya Eric) and the stereotypical crime families. I look at it like this?many critics have said it?s a hybrid of the Godfather and the Untouchables?that?s absolutely true, but neither of those films needed a Batman painted over them. They had their Vito/Michael and their Elliot Ness. Which is why I believe (seriously) that the film would have been a masterpiece if Batman had just been cut out, as he clumsily acts as our perception and only clutters up the movie, and just let it be a Gordon and Harvey story against the Joker. Perfection on the angle of the story they were telling. Think about it, Batman is supposed to be the guy who can do what they can?t, but in this movie ends up being just as lost most of time past capturing Mr. Hong Kong and faking Gordon?s death (yawn) and thus makes him utterly useless. The sonar tracker thing is something they can?t do, but I just didn?t buy because the entire concept is just too impossible and frankly makes me look at Bruce Wayne like George W. Bush.

Look at it like this. Harvey Dent/Two-Face is Michael Corleone pre and post Vito?s reign but on the cop side of things, Gordon is Elliot Ness, and The Joker is Al Capone on permanent baseball bat mode. Batman doesn?t really fit. Don?t say he?s Vito. I?d say you were right, but unlike Vito, Bats gets way too lost too much of the time. Baffled by the Joker's lack of a plan is one thing, being to the point of your mouth hanging open until he blows something else up is another.


The point is folks, YES Batman deals with the harshness of street crime, it created him, but in order to keep the suspense and equal entertainment in a delicate balance, you have to tailor make the story to fit him, not paint him over a mob suspense movie. If anything was tailored in this movie to better fit a character it was the gags around the Joker and it shows. He?s the shockwave of awesomeness that is the ?dawn? after a ?darkness? most boring.

As a Burtonite, I was afraid that TDK would be the best there was. In the end, I was crushed that it wasn?t?as a Batman fan.


In the end, I give it a D+. Based on brilliant story ill-fitting of Batman and on that I didn't think the title character brought the goods in context or in performance. Ledger alone keeps this movie from getting a big fat F.

On personal note, I want to say I do not wish to incite anger. I believe in uniting all Batfans of all kinds. This is only my opinion and I ask that I not be cross examined. If you want to discuss it, fine. But, my opinion is likely not to be changed and neither is yours. Please remember that. 

w  h  y    s   o   s   e  r  i  o  u s   

verdict D+

[thecolorsblend]

What I find is that Nolan's Batman films work on a number of levels... but one of them is not "serious filmmaking" on the order of what we saw in the Burton films.  Like it or not, the Nolan stuff veers more towards popcorn entertainment with a lot of serious scenes thrown in for a little depth.  Therefore, the plot and characters work only as well as they need to and then sputter to a hault after that.

Even with those minimal expectations, it's still hard for me to get anything out of BB.  However, those parameters work rather nicely for TDK.  In that sense, TDK does everything it set out to do.  It's not really a film that lends itself to "digging deeper", as some of us are prone to do.

Just think of it as big, dumb entertainment and maybe the sight of Batman dragging Lao out of his own office building or Freeman gently making fun of Reese's blackmail plan become more enjoyable.  You're not wrong to rank it as you did, I just think you want something that Nolan isn't going to provide.

Either way, solid review man.  I like that you explain why you were let down by TDK rather than simply saying "teh bAle sux, keeton pwns all, omglolz" or some such.  You did your fellow Burtonmen proud. 

[Joker81]

Hi,
thats was a great review, and I do share a lot of your opinions. Thats exactly how I felt after viewing TDK.

But one thing I dont agree with is you saying it had a great story.

For me it didnt. I thought the plot was muddled and paperthin you could spit through it. It was like the Nolans where trying to be smart, but it came across like they were taking the audiance for fools! Too many coinsdence's happened at the same time all in the Jokers favour.

I thought the first hour was very good, it seemed like it was going in a great direction. The middle was a tad slow and boring. I didnt care for Rachel at all, so when she died I felt nothing. Then it was like Gordan and his cops, Dent and Batman all left their brians at home!! They were the thickist policeforce in the world. This made the Joker look smart. But All the twists I could see coming a mile off. And Batman, Dent and Gordan was running about Gotham like headless chickens!

The finale was totally ludicrous! After Dent became two-face the story seem to go nowhere. Because of the Two-Face story I think the main story and the Jokers character suffered a lot for it. In the end subplots where not resolved and the fact Batman took the fall for Dent didnt make sense. I know he may of felt he owed it to Dent, and he still wanted to protect the persona that Dent was the inspiration and hope for Gotham by not blackening his name, but is Batman not for truth and Justice? Denying victims truth and justice is just wrong and the wrong message to project!

In the end, if the Nolans had of just tried to tell a simple straight forward story instead of tryng to be smart the movie could have been better. It is a popcorn movie afterall and in time will end up in its rightful place. Its no Godfather, Departed, Heat or any crime film like that. Its not even Dogday Afternoon which is a far better movie too.

It seems they have tried to model TDK on Empire Strikes Back, were the goodies lose and all the baddies win! But its so badly told. ESB it is not!

You can't do realistic and fantasy popcorn film at the same time. I am not here to bash the film. I enjoyed it. But it's not the masterpiece people are saying it is. View the films I listed above then come back I tell me TDK is a masterpiece.

[Sandman]

Well im glad im not the only one that didn't fnd it as good as the hype. That was a great review im also glad you kept to how you felt about it i give that review an A.

[The Dark Knight]

verdict D+

LOL 

Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.

[Sandman]

Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.

I did the same thing when i saw that the Nolanites gave it 9.7 out of 10 before the movie came out. But it's ok they said they saw the 6 min tralier for the 2hour 45min movie and from that figuered it was the greatest movie of ll time .

[The Dark Knight]

Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.

I did the same thing when i saw that the Nolanites gave it 9.7 out of 10 before the movie came out. .

Yes, agreed. That is pretty silly to do that. I never understood people doing that. But, now I have seen the film I can rank it highly.

[Sandman]

I can understand rateing it highly it was a good movie but that's going to extreme's.

[The Dark Knight]

I can understand rateing it highly it was a good movie but that's going to extreme's.

What's going to extremes? Rating a film before you see it? Yes, I have said that is.

I have rated the film highly AFTER seeing it.

[Sandman]

I was just refering to the whole let's rate this the greatest movie of all time 6 months before it come's out as taking it to the extreme's.