Share slice's profile
slice
slice's stats
- Review count1
- Helpfulness votes0
- First reviewJuly 20, 2008
- Last reviewJuly 20, 2008
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3
slice's Reviews
Overall rating
3
/
5
Good, but could be better
PostedJuly 20, 2008
slice
from NorthEast New Jersey
In 2005 Batman Begins came out with a "brand new" take on the Batman franchise. Viewers were expected to watch this movie as though the previous Batmans had not existed.
This was an easy challenge for me since I didn't really like those movies anyway. Batman Begins turned out to be a real treat. Someone had finally had the brilliance to treat the story and the Batman character in the way that I'd come accustomed to knowing it: as a serious, believable, capable, highly trained, invulnerable in many ways yet vulnerable in others character with believable dimension. There was never any doubt, any moment where I thought to myself "Christian Bale's not pulling it off", or "that couldn't happen". To me the "brand new" take on Batman wasn't brand new at all -it was the way the story was supposed to be handled. I left the theater wanting more and having full faith that the director, Chris Nolan, was the person to pull it off.
This was an easy challenge for me since I didn't really like those movies anyway. Batman Begins turned out to be a real treat. Someone had finally had the brilliance to treat the story and the Batman character in the way that I'd come accustomed to knowing it: as a serious, believable, capable, highly trained, invulnerable in many ways yet vulnerable in others character with believable dimension. There was never any doubt, any moment where I thought to myself "Christian Bale's not pulling it off", or "that couldn't happen". To me the "brand new" take on Batman wasn't brand new at all -it was the way the story was supposed to be handled. I left the theater wanting more and having full faith that the director, Chris Nolan, was the person to pull it off.
Yesterday I saw the sequel, The Dark Knight. I went into this movie pumped from all the hype surrounding it, some of it self-induced. What the heck -I'm a Batman fan after all; if enduring the pre-2005 interpretations of B atman didn't put me off from viewing another, then I must be a big huge fan.
Deep in the back of my mind, however, was a memory of all the hype surrounding the first Batman movie with Keaton and how entranced audiences seemed to be towards what would later prove to be not so enduring of a film. I was hoping this would not be a repeat.
Deep in the back of my mind, however, was a memory of all the hype surrounding the first Batman movie with Keaton and how entranced audiences seemed to be towards what would later prove to be not so enduring of a film. I was hoping this would not be a repeat.
As a nutshell review of The Dark Knight I'll say this: I liked it.... but it could've been better.
I liked that this movie continued to keep the Batman story in the context of something that could happen, in fact this movie made it seem even more plausible than the previous one. The writing was at no point dumbed down, unlike the first movie (Batman '89), and there were no areas where a character was saying a line to himself but also as an aside to the audience (Gordon's "I gotta get me one of those!" in Batman Begins). The characters were believable, and I was enthralled from early on about the depiction of the Joker when I first started seeing photographs of Heath Ledger in costume. Unlike Nicholson, the makeup wasn't insulting. Ledger's Chelsea grin was a plausible interpretation, rather than a vat of mystery acid t hat would kill anyone else but Jack Napier. Joker finally looked like someone who's superficial scars beget even deeper psychological scars.
I felt that all the actors did a commendable job performing their roles, and as such I get the impression that this is being handled by the media as more of an act-ing movie rather than an act-ion movie because the acting seems to be all that anyone is commenting on. I think the general public is viewing this movie from the very narrow focus of the acting without considering the whole. Obviously, Katie Holmes, the weak link of the previous movie, was replaced by the far more capable Maggie Gyllenhaal who brought much needed charisma and personality to the role. Alfred's role was fleshed out a bit more as was Gordon's.
Everyone seems to be singling out Heath Ledger's role as the Joker and as such I believe that his take on the role is miles ahead of Nicholson. -No comparison, in fact. Ledger is/was the Joker. He was demented, unpredictable, and quirky. I found myself laughing at him in areas where I wouldn't have laughed if any other character had done what he was doing. The only problem I had with him is -there wasn't enou gh of him. At least, not in the right way. My wife mentioned that she felt that he was "an enhanced version of Beetlejuice". I think that there probably aren't that many other ways you could go with that part. Perhaps that's merely the limit of my imagination. I'm happy that he was more believable than Nicholson.
Likewise Aaron Eckhart was far superior as Harvey Dent than Tommy Lee Jones was. (spoiler alert) I liked the Two-Face effect and found it to be far more plausible and yet truer to the comic book legend than the Schumaker version was. If it looked as though it was borrowed from a zombie movie, then that's fine with me. My only critique of it is actually based on something my brother said about the movie "Darkman": how would he blink, or say certain words that require the lips?
Here's the thing, and where I think the movie could've been better is twofold: Firstly, I think that one of the most subtle yet important elements of the first movie was missing and that's the context in which the characters reside. Gotham had gone from a dark, dirty, enormous city ridden with a crime, poverty, and corruption problem, to a clean, bright city where the criminals are represented by a few token crime bosses who have passing reference to the police that they have in their pockets. In the first movie you could see the corruption and degradation, it was in your face. The sets were all beat up, there were homeless people all over the streets, Batman jumps into a apartment building and it's obviously owned by a vacant landlord. In The Dark Knight however, every room is clean, the streets are clean, it's literally a different Gotham City. It would be difficult to see a need for a Batman in this film since everything's so pristeen. What happened to the Narrows in this movie? Aren't there supposed to be psychotic criminals running around all over the place?
The second problem with this movie is that I think it fell victim to its executive producers and I say this because the scope, or the focus, of the story was a little too broad. Two and a half hours, man. That's a long time to sit through a movie! But back to the original critique about the focus of the story; the thing is, the first movie was all about Batman. No matter what happened in it, the movie was about how it related to Batman. People were glad to see a Batman movie where the focus of the movie was finally on Batman. The Dark Knight, despite its name, isn't about Batman anymore and I think that it would've been far more interesting if it had been. In this movie Batman was now almost a secondary character, one who in the previous movie wouldn't have ever considered giving himself up to the demand of a criminal. In the first movie he simply would've kicked the criminal's butt re: "I swear to God!" -"Swear to Me!!"
What I think could've been more interesting would be to present the Joker as seen mostly through Batman's eyes; Batman trails the Joker as he goes from a smalltime thug murdering liquor store clerks as he robs them to someone who makes even the organized criminals pause. Batman shows up at the crime scene and investigates the clues and as he goes along, a character is slowly revealed to be his own antithesis, a little like in the movie Se7en. Then Alfred's advice to Bruce about the Joker would have more poignancy and purpose. Batman has opportunity to truly reflect on what the existence of Joker says about him.
It might have interesting to depict criminals who are equally afraid of the Joker as they are of the Batman as the Joker's legend spreads throughout the city. (spoiler alert) Instead of having the Scarecrow apprehended by Batman, it may have been interesting if Joker had himself trumped Scarecrow and stolen his operations. There was a moment at the beginning of the movie where Joker plays a "magic trick" with a pencil on a table. I wanted to see more moments like this. In that one moment Joker was demented and sadistic yet surprisingly funny. If there had been maybe two more instances like this, Joker would have been a REALLY scary and entertaining character.
It might have interesting to depict criminals who are equally afraid of the Joker as they are of the Batman as the Joker's legend spreads throughout the city. (spoiler alert) Instead of having the Scarecrow apprehended by Batman, it may have been interesting if Joker had himself trumped Scarecrow and stolen his operations. There was a moment at the beginning of the movie where Joker plays a "magic trick" with a pencil on a table. I wanted to see more moments like this. In that one moment Joker was demented and sadistic yet surprisingly funny. If there had been maybe two more instances like this, Joker would have been a REALLY scary and entertaining character.
(spoiler alert) I liked having Harvey Dent in this movie but I think that Two-Face could've been cut out. Two-Faces character is very interesting and with some research into Multiple Personality Disorder a very engaging story could be created, perhaps even more so than the story about Joker. Additionally, I think the time frame of the story arc on Harvey Dent could have been shifted to an earlier point to make him a more tragic character. If Harvey had not already been the D.A. at the beginning of the movie and instead was a smaller scale lawyer fighting to become a D.A., and over the course of the movie became a legal crusader which lead to becoming the D.A., I think I would have bought into his tragedy a little more. I think that if his story had been left open-ended at that end of the movie it would have left more room for focus on Batman and Joker's battle. The point at which Joker gloats over Harvey at the hospital should have b een the last point at which we see him. Then we cut to Joker walking out of the hospital as it blows up and we never know whether Harvey made it out alive. Then he can show up in a later movie as Two-Face and an even more interesting story arc could be developed since Batman and Gordon would already have a relationship with Two-Face's previous personality. He could also be incredibly slippery in a legal sense because he has an intimate knowledge of the law.
Another thing that was present in the first film that was missing from this one are some core themes that drove the story. The reliance on various father figures throughout the story was gone, Batman Begins had a nice ongoing theme about confronting fear and that was again missing in Dark Knight. The presence of Joker could have developed a theme for Batman: if Batman is X then what is anti-X and what is the cost of confronting his own antithesis? Likewise, Two-Face could have brought up all kinds of issues of duplicitous characters inhabiting the same person.
Again, overall I liked this film. I believe the hype about it is overblown and I think a lot of people are liking this movie because the press tells them to. I give this movie a B, because I see room for improvement. I think there were a lot of missed opportunities in this movie, where in the first movie no opportunity was missed
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.