Let's Put a Smile on that Face!
Written: Jul 18 '08 (Updated Jul 18 '08)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Bang For The Buck |
 |
|
|
Pros: Heath Ledger, Heath Ledger, Heath Ledger...
Cons: Not as good as its predecessor, Bale and Eckhart a little disappointing
The Bottom Line: Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar for his amazing performance as The Joker, but the rest of the movie falls flat
|
|
|
| duke101's Full Review: The Dark Knight |
I'm going to have to play devil's advocate here, but I've got to say it, this sequel was simply not as good as Batman Begins for me. That's not to say The Dark Knight is a bad movie, or even just average, only that its predecessor was a better overall movie. I realize I'm probably the only person in the world to hold that opinion, but allow me to explain.
First the positive: Heath Ledger. If there's one aspect of this film that not only lives up to the hype, but even exceeds it, that would have to be Ledger's portrayal of The Joker, which is as fresh and original as it is true to the essence of the character in the comic books over decades.
When Ledger is on screen, you simply can't look away. His character is terrifying and unpredictable, down to little manneurisms (such as Ledger licking his lips as he speaks) and the unusual tone of his voice, and at times, you even find yourself laughing along with his character, wondering if it is appropriate given the many unspeakable acts of violence he commits. And that is really what The Joker is all about. Ledger also takes a fresh approach to The Joker as the ultimate anarchist, who does not commit crimes for profit (as seen when he burns a pile of money he has gained), but rather committing crimes to shake up the establishment and break the rules.
The problem is that if you were to remove Ledger from the picture, there's really not much else that shines about the movie. Try to imagine that for a second if you've seen the film, what would it be like without Heath Ledger? If all you had was Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, and the rest of the cast. What would you take away from a movie like that? And therein lies the problem, Ledger is the entire movie, and even the greatest of actors isn't enough to carry a picture without an equally great ensemble of actors, masterful direction and script, and the whole works.
And despite how great much of the cast was in Batman Begins , the returning members seem muted in the film, most notably Christian Bale, who feels like he's going through the motions for most of the movie. Part of this is the fault of the screenplay, which struggles in confusion as to whether to portray Batman as the hero as he must be during a summer blockbuster, or an individual who one character refers to as having too much power for any one man, who brutalizes criminals in ways that he never does in the comics and invades the privacy of an entire city by tapping in on everyone's phone conversations. Quite simply, this Batman is not likeable, and the same cannot be said for the Batman of Batman Begins .
My other problem with Bale's portrayal of Batman in this movie is that he really overdoes the gravely voice that he used mostly for intimidation in Batman Begins . I understand Batman is supposed to be a little creepy, but I'm not sure why he has to use that voice when he's talking to someone who knows his secret identity, simply because he put the mask on. At times, Bale sounds almost like a caricature of his amazing performance in the prior film.
Even Gary Oldman, who plays Commissioner Gordon, seems to have less personality than he did in Batman Begins despite him and his family having a much larger role in this movie. Rather than playing the lone good cop in a city full of corruption, he is just another one of many cops who suddenly seem remarkably decent considering the nature of the police force in the prior movie. With the exception of only one scene near the end of the movie that I will not spoil, Oldman shows almost no emotion at all.
But one of the biggest disappointments for me was Aaron Eckhart. I expected the star of In the Company of Men (an indie film gem that you must see to believe) to be so much more than this. Eckhart fails to bring the arrogance of such roles as he played in Thank You For Smoking and In the Company of Men to the successful District Attorney Harvey Dent. Worse still, Eckhart seems to make almost no change as his darker personna of Two-Face comes through, except for the striking make-up on his face (which is truly shocking when you first see it). But where is the change in Harvey Dent's voice when he becomes disfigured and turns to Two-Face or the sense of insanity? If you're looking at only the human side of his face, Eckhart just never seems scary, in sharp contrast to The Joker.
And as with the acting, the direction simply is not as astounding as it was in Batman Begins . Of course, some of the action sequences are masterfully directed, but there is simply nothing like the bizarre hallucination scenes in the first movie when individuals were subjected to Scarecrow's fear toxin, or an array of interesting settings such as the Arctic environment where Bruce Wayne met Ra's Al Ghul. Rather, a surprising amount of the movie takes place during the daylight, and mostly in sterile city landscapes (filmed in Chicago), with a brief excursion to an Asian city for a scene that feels as if it could have been cut.
The writing is generally good, particularly so for a summer blockbuster, and is much better than your average comic book movie, but again, doesn't seem as confident or striking as in Batman Begins . The one pleasant change is that there are far fewer tongue in cheek jokes thrown into the script for the audience to appreciate during a summer flick, the movie rarely insults the viewer's intelligence. But as I alluded to before, the script suffers from mixed messages. Of course, the writers did not want Batman to come across as a typical hero, who is always doing the right thing. But it is difficult to watch an action movie without being able to root for the hero every now and then, and at times, you just want to see The Joker blow something else up instead.
The writing also fails to show Batman as the capable detective and martial artist that he is the comics, as he is shown for most of the movie as completely reliant on technological devices and the assistance of Alfred and Lucius Fox. One would have expected with the passage of time since the first movie that Batman would have become more skilled, and would not simply be a vigilante with the money to buy equipment that allows him to fight crime. Where is Bruce Wayne's brilliant mind from the comics? And while I'm at it, why couldn't the writers include one scene in the Batcave, which is apparently still under construction after Wayne Manor was wrecked in the first movie? Maybe it's just me, but I don't like seeing Batman operate out of a penthouse.
Were the movie a bit shorter than its total running length of around two and a half hours, and not following such a great movie as Batman Begins , I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It also would have helped if the movie had not been so ridiculously overhyped with an advertising blitz like nothing I've seen before and constant media buildup (which was only deserved for Heath Ledger). So I'm giving the movie the benefit of the doubt and I cannot completely fault the movie for not living up to my expectations that it would be the best movie I've ever seen. And The Dark Knight is certainly worth seeing as one of the few gems during what I consider to be a rather pathetic summer of blockbusters. But in comparison to the original, I'm just not that impressed.
Recommended:
Yes
Movie Mood: Action Movie
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
duke101
|
|
Member: Adam
Reviews written: 174
Trusted by: 16 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.