There is officially an embargo that, although it's being broken left and right, I intend to uphold for the moment. I called in favors to get into tonight's IMAX screening and I don't want to burn bridges. Besides, I need a day or two to digest everything. This is a long, potent, physically draining movie (the IMAX effect is almost overpowering). A full review will come closer to the opening day.But, know this... The Dark Knight is the worst movie of the year, and the worst comic book movie since Ghost Rider. Heath Ledger gives the worst comic book performance since Halle Berry in Catwoman and I have a newfound appreciation for Superman Returns and Spider-Man 2.
I kid...
It's not perfect. It's too long, and there is much that should be been cut or held until the inevitable third film (two 115 minute films would have been ideal). The habit of Nolan's in Batman Begins to over-expositorize and monologue rears its very ugly head here. The need to combine R-rated content and sensibilities with a PG-13 format leads to an obtuseness to the violence (lots of quick cutting and obscure angles), to the point where it's occasionally difficult to discern what happened. And the voice that Christian Bale uses for Batman sounds cartoonishly menacing, far more so than in Batman Begins. This is fine for uttering quick threats, but Batman has several mini-monologues and the obviousness of his vocal put-on hurts their effectiveness.
As for the million-dollar question - Heath Ledger is terrific and terrifically fun as The Joker, but this Oscar talk is irrelevant unless sentiment overpowers and the Oscar bait movies of fall really underwhelm. Countless actors could have given his read on The Joker, since his performance is pretty similar to the better comics stories (stories which I won't name here since that would constitute spoilers), almost to the point of mimicking.
This is The Joker that Mark Hamill would have played if Batman: The Animated Series aired on HBO at 10pm. And, frankly, in many of his quieter scenes, Ledger reminded me a lot of Jack Nicholson's take back in 1989 (his laugh is almost identical as is his mouth work). THAT was groundbreaking work for its time. Ledger gives a terrific comic book performance, just a notch below Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, and Willem Dafoe, and completely in service of a very good, morally complex movie. I just don't think it's as overpowering as others seem to, and I believe that the reviews would be more reasonable had Ledger been alive to read them.
Dial your expectations down. This isn't the best movie ever, kids. I'm not even sure if it's better than Batman Begins, or even a proper sequel in the traditional sense. But it is pretty darn great adult entertainment, it's different than any other comic book film every made, and it's a hell of a ride.
Scott Mendelson
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteNote: Spoilers follow (just in case)! This is in response to your comment over at Hollywood Elsewhere (my handle is bishopprice over there, btw). You noted that the "extradition" of the Chinese gangster creates a logistic plot hole, but I'd argue that it was okay. Here's why: clearly the character Lau is a member of the Chinese underground, (presumably a member of the Triad?). Would the Chinese gov't really be that concerned with him being kidnapped? Also, don't you think Batman might have "convinced" Lau to tell the authorities that he returned of his own recognizance? Actually does it really matter since in real life, every arrest Batman assists would be turned over in court anyways? I guess I'm saying that's a minor nitpick.
I loved the movie but I agree it had a couple of problematic plot points. The biggest plot hole to me was the "death" of Gordon. How did they plan that? Wouldn't that entail Gordon knowing Batman's identity? Is this something they just cooked up in the ambulance? Murky stuff. But you know what? I totally forgave it at the time, because the payoff was so satisfying. More later. Cool blog. Should have checked it out earlier. You're actually one of the reasonable posters over at HE.
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteNote: Spoilers follow (just in case)! This is in response to your comment over at Hollywood Elsewhere (my handle is bishopprice over there, btw). You noted that the "extradition" of the Chinese gangster creates a logistic plot hole, but I'd argue that it was okay. Here's why: clearly the character Lau is a member of the Chinese underground, (presumably a member of the Triad?). Would the Chinese gov't really be that concerned with him being kidnapped? Also, don't you think Batman might have "convinced" Lau to tell the authorities that he returned of his own recognizance? Actually does it really matter since in real life, every arrest Batman assists would be turned over in court anyways? I guess I'm saying that's a minor nitpick.
I loved the movie but I agree it had a couple of problematic plot points. The biggest plot hole to me was the "death" of Gordon. How did they plan that? Wouldn't that entail Gordon knowing Batman's identity? Is this something they just cooked up in the ambulance? Murky stuff. But you know what? I totally forgave it at the time, because the payoff was so satisfying. More later. Cool blog. Should have checked it out earlier. You're actually one of the reasonable posters over at HE.