New on DVD Dec 08 2008 @ 03:00 pm
REVIEW: The Dark Knight
Directed By: Christopher Nolan
Written By: Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman
Running Time: 152 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace
This review was originally published August 4th, 2008.
Thank you for your patience. Many factors contributed to the time it took me to write this, not least of all its length, but I hope it was worth the wait, and I hope that you are still interested in reading it.
There is a clear distinction between the film reviewer and the film critic, although at first glance it appears to simply be semantics. The film reviewer writes for the person who has not yet seen the film in question and may not know anything about it. They avoid significant spoilers, spend a great deal of time synopsizing, keep things relatively brief, and cultivate a tone of recommendation: thumbs up or thumbs down, praise or pan, see it now, wait for the DVD, or avoid like the plague. The film critic, on the other hand, writes for the person who has already seen the film. They discuss the internal workings of the movie, wrestle with why it succeeds or fails, and attempt to bring about a deeper understanding of the film’s sociological implications and its place within the culture at large.
I attempt, with varying degrees of success, to combine both of these paradigms in my writing, but The Dark Knight necessitates a more critical approach. In my professional career as a critic so far, it has been the only film that I have required myself to see twice before writing about. Although I am somewhat late to the party, you would have all seen the film whether I told you to or not, so I’m not concerned with the tardiness of this piece. I am also eschewing the guidelines for reviewing, embracing the role of critic instead, so if you’re in the 5% who have yet to see the box office record breaker (rectify that immediately), consider yourself forewarned.
As filmgoers we are often asked to choose between films that entertain and films that stimulate thought, but rarely are we given both in the same package. Few have accomplished this in recent memory (No Country For Old Men, The Lives of Others, and The Mist all come to mind). The Dark Knight, however, is an epic achievement on both counts.
Even with 5 months left in 2008, I guarantee you will not find a film this magnificently entertaining all year. Allow me to retain my ‘reviewers’ cap for a moment and say that if you consider yourself a movie lover of any significant worth, this is the one film that must be seen theatrically. Must. And having seen it in both standard 35mm and in IMAX, I can happily regurgitate what hundreds of others have said over the past few weeks: you have not truly seen The Dark Knight until you’ve seen it in IMAX. The difference is night and day, due to Christopher Nolan’s brilliant decision (I can only hope other directors follow his lead) to film the action sequences entirely with specialized IMAX cameras. When Batman leaps off a building in Hong Kong and the camera gleefully follows his plummeting descent, it sucked the breath out of my lungs. Literally. The Dark Knight is one of the most exciting, adrenaline-fueled films I have ever seen.
But plenty of films manage to be exciting, even incredibly so. Wanted, Iron Man, and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, each comic book adaptations debuting in the past 3 months, have all registered shockingly high on the fun-o-meter. And while Batman Begins, Nolan’s previous foray into the world of the caped crusader, was considered by many to be the cream of the superhero crop, it remained securely anchored to the ground by its comic book origins. What, then, makes The Dark Knight different?
Christopher Nolan, like (to a lesser extent) Jon Favreau (Iron Man) and Peter Berg (Hancock), has realized that superhero flicks need to evolve to remain viable, both critically and financially. While Tim Burton’s vision of Batman worked fine in 1989, his kitschy and conspicuously stylized aesthetic is no longer relevant, especially in the post-post-9/11 world in which we live. We are reaching superhero burnout, and it won’t be long before Spider-Man goes the way of Daredevil and Ghostrider.
So Nolan strips his film of all but the most essential comic book conventions. While characters and outfits remain, gothic-pop landscapes and goofy plots to destroy the city go. There are no wink-wink-nudge-nudge moments that announce that this is a Comic Book Movie, no traces of irony, no cheeseball asides. Christopher Nolan takes the central question behind Batman – what are the consequences of putting on the mask? – and completely legitimizes it. The entire film is a meditation on the answers to that one question.
Note: Do not read any further until you’ve seen the film.
Bruce Wayne is a man in conflict. Having created the Batman persona, he finds himself disappearing further and further inside of it. Not only is it like a drug, consuming his life to the point where he doesn’t even return home after a night of crime fighting, it is also fracturing his personality. He and others have begun to refer to Batman in the third person, as if he was another entity entirely and not simply Bruce with a mask over his face. Is Batman a part of Bruce Wayne or is Bruce Wayne a part of Batman? The balance is shifting away from the former and ever closer to the latter.
The playboy billionaire, however, is the only one who doesn’t seem to realize this. Alfred recognizes the symbol that his employer’s alter ego has become (“Batman can make the choice that no one else can.”) and Rachel realizes the addictive toll it has taken on the man she loves (“When I told you that if Gotham no longer needed Batman we could be together, I meant it. But now, I’m sure, the day won’t come when you no longer need Batman.”). Wayne, in the meantime, obliviously continues to slip further into the dark abyss of the cowl.
Christian Bale’s guttural, almost ridiculously gruff growl as Batman has drawn a lot of criticism, and initially I was put-off and distracted by it as well. This choice, however, is a finely calculated decision, both directorially and in terms of the character. The difference in voice between Batman and Wayne is so extreme that it effectively separates the two in the audience’s mind. They feel like different characters, and the overlap that existed between them in the first film has almost entirely disappeared here. Gone are the suiting up sequences, and only one scene in the entire film shows us Bruce in the Batman outfit (fittingly enough, it is an emotionally pivotal moment wherein he wrestles with how his choices have led to Rachel’s death). The basement-crawling growl serves to accentuate this division, and it becomes a brilliant maneuver rather than a grating liability.
In addition, it serves to reason that as Bruce is further consumed by his dark half he will embrace, and even revel in, the theatricality of the Batman. The grand entrances, the stunning exits, the shock-and-awe gadgetry, and the rumbling bass are all part of the performance. In The Dark Knight, Bruce begins taking that to ever increasing extremes: escaping with captured criminals by being whipped out of skyscrapers by Skyhook, harnessing the power of thousands of cellphones to paint a sonar portrait of Gotham, and deepening his already-deep growl. As he builds up a tolerance to the Batman drug, Bruce accelerates the spectacle, becoming more and more of a theatrical junkie. And while this certainly serves to threaten his sense of personal identity, it also harbors a much nastier and much less psychological consequence.
Enter the Joker, the direct and tangible result of Batman’s existence. In pulling on the mask, Bruce has “changed things forever,” as the Joker opines while hanging upside down by one leg. He is the yang to Batman’s yin, the Laurel to his Hardy, the flipside of the coin, the unavoidable balance that the universe must bring about. In previous incarnations, both comic and cinematic, Batman was directly responsible for the Joker’s creation by accidentally knocking him into a vat of acid, but here he simply exists by virtue of Batman existing. “You crossed the line first,” Alfred remarks. Giving birth to a new class of crime fighter, Bruce Wayne inevitably birthed its dark twin, a “new class of criminal.”
Heath Ledger is a force of nature. Despite his tragic and untimely death, despite the media circus surrounding him and the film, his performance crushes whatever preconceived notions or extenuating expectations you might have brought into the theater. It is not Heath Ledger. It is not an actor. It is not a real person who once lived and is now dead. It is only the Joker. In all his chaotic charisma, he reaches out with his velvety gloves and erases everything from your mind but him and him alone. There is no hyperbole in saying this is an Oscar worthy performance. Given Ledger’s death and the political nature of the Academy, his posthumous win come February is absolutely guaranteed.
“Nothing. No name. No other alias. Clothing is custom. Nothing in his pockets but knives and lint.” Commissioner Gordon’s estimation of the Joker is a snapshot of who Nolan and Ledger have chosen to give us. Rather than delve into a tired origin story, they have stripped him of his past and loosed him, like a “mad dog,” upon Batman and audiences alike. There is no beginning to him, no back story that might grant him “motivation,” no before and after that has marked nearly every villain in Batman’s storied history. The multiple sob stories that the Joker tells only serve to highlight the fact that he no longer has a story. The Joker simply is.
But what he is not, however, is solely a metaphorical symbol for anarchy and chaos. The Joker did have a past life, and the fact that he was someone is important, even if who he was is not. The original man has been swallowed whole by the Joker, as whole as hell swallows the doomed. The person has become the persona, disappearing fully inside the theatrical – scars, makeup, and purple cloth are all that remain. It is the same fate that awaits Bruce Wayne – how long before he has been completely replaced by cowl, growl, and cape? They are the same at different stages, Bruce Wayne in transition, the Joker having completed his. The Crown Prince of Crime is the inevitable conclusion to the Caped Crusader.
Other moments in the film bear this interrelatedness out. In front of one of the Joker’s deranged and schizophrenic henchmen, Batman remarks to Harvey Dent, “[He is] the kind of mind that the Joker attracts.” The irony is lost on him, as he himself attracts likeminded individuals, unstable copycats intent on vigilantism. “What gives you the right? What’s the difference between you and me?” one of them challenges Batman. His response, “I’m not wearing hockey pants,” is an indication of Bruce Wayne’s self-delusion. Whereas the Joker recognizes, and embraces, the attractive gravity of his persona, Batman denies it. “See, to them, you’re just a freak, like me.” The hero refuses to accept that he is identical to his wannabe batmen and his freakish opponent, just coated with a different shade of paint. His disillusionment is total.
Even the score and the method in which it was created illustrates both the dichotomy and the similarities between the Joker and the Batman. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard collaborated on the score, and when asked which one had composed which aspect of it, they said,
HZ: Nobody will ever know who wrote what tune and what piece.
JNH: Including us!
HZ: Including us. We were doing it on this one, listening to something from the first one, going is that your tune or is that my tune?
JNH: Really true, we just don’t know anymore.
Yet when composing for the Joker they split apart, and Hans Zimmer alone composed the twisted clown’s theme.
HZ: I think that the fearlessness within the character of The Joker and the recklessness, I felt the music had to reflect that – and the single-mindedness. So that in a funny way was where the team idea went out of the window because it really had to be written as one.
Together, yet separate. Alike, yet different. Opposite sides of the same coin.
The image of a coin carries the symbiotic relationship between Batman and the Joker even deeper. Like warring parents within a destructive marriage, others become pawns in their quest to triumph over one another. One of those pawns is Harvey Dent. Batman sees him as a way to escape from his addiction, from the self-inflicted prison he is unable to break out of: “Gotham needs a hero with a face…Harvey is that hero.” The Joker sees him in an entirely different, yet no more selfish, light: “You need an ace in the hole. Mine’s Harvey.” Between them both the White Knight of Gotham is torn apart. If Batman represents the second act and the Joker represents the tragic finale, then Harvey “Two-Face” represents the entire 3-act play.
Handsome, charismatic, idealistic, and with a flair for the dramatic, Harvey Dent is initially no different than Bruce Wayne. Where Wayne ‘kidnaps’ an entire Russian ballet company in order to fabricate an alibi, Dent disarms a witness in court, strips the gun apart, and then insists on continuing his cross-examination. Both of them are consummate showmen.
And then, just as it descended upon Bruce, tragedy strikes Harvey Dent. His loved ones taken from him by violence and his face boiled to char, he enters a dark, self-destructive place. The same anger and inner turmoil that took Bruce to a Chinese concentration camp in Batman Begins takes Harvey deep inside his own ruined psyche. As it happened to the Joker, and as it is happening to Wayne, Harvey fully embraces madness. He destroys the man he was, and Harvey Dent disappears forever. The arc is complete. In his place he leaves Two-Face, the twisted child of both Batman and the Joker. Batman gave him the coin, but the Joker taught him how to flip it. “I brought him down to our level. It wasn’t hard. You see madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push.”
The structural beauty and thematic symmetry of The Dark Knight is completely owed to both Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s brilliant script and Lee Smith’s precise editing. Both are works of art in their own right. Like movements within a symphony, the Nolans weave Batman and the Joker and Harvey Two-Face in and through and around one another, each character reflecting the themes of choice and responsibility and madness. And each of these movements is juggled with expert skill by Smith, who manages, during key moments, three to four separate sequences, blending them all together to create a single, cohesive narrative vision. Notice the final scene, where Batman chooses to shoulder the blame for Harvey’s crimes. Smith moves from Batman and Gordon, to Harvey Dent’s funeral, to Gordon destroying the bat symbol, to Alfred, to Lucius, and then back to Batman, all within the space of mere minutes. Each characters’ story is resolved, and the themes that have been building and rising the entire film crest the top of the wave and crash down in a stunning crescendo, set to Newton and Zimmer’s epic score.
“I’ve seen what I would have to become to stop men like him.” The irony is that in order to stop the Joker from triumphing, Bruce has to embrace the very thing he desperately attempted to reject. He must become the criminal, the murderer, the hunted dog. He must be the man who has no rules, the one who defies laws. He must become the villain. He must become the freak. He must completely, and totally, become the Batman.
With Dent lying broken before him and Rachel, dead, behind him, Bruce finally accepts what he is, what he has become, what Alfred saw from the beginning and what Rachel somehow knew all along. Batman is no longer a part of him, but an icon, a symbol, something beyond himself. The Bat has taken on a life of its own, and the man, at last, embraces the truth of the persona. His sacrifice in doing so is personal, psychological, and perhaps ultimate. One of the strongest ties to his former life, the woman he loved, has been severed, and his hope for a Batman-less Gotham has perished with Harvey Dent. So he willingly races into the future, into a world where Bruce Wayne has faded from memory, a world where only the Dark Knight remains.
He finally understands the consequences of putting on the mask.
BATMAN: You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can do those things, because I’m not a hero, not like Dent. I killed those people. That’s what I can be.
GORDON: No, no, you can’t, you’re…
BATMAN: I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be. Call it in.
GORDON: (to crowd at Dent’s funeral) A hero. Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed. Nothing less but a knight, shining.
(to Batman) They’ll hunt you.BATMAN: You’ll hunt me. Condemn me. Set the dogs on me. I guess that’s what needs to happen, because sometimes, the truth isn’t good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.
Batman flees on foot.
GORDON’S SON: Why is he running, Dad?
GORDON: Because we have to chase him.
GORDON’S SON: He didn’t do anything wrong.
GORDON: He’s the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it, because he’s not a hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector.
The Dark Knight
on Aug 04 2008 @ 11:13 pm 1. Cinexcellence said …
Well written. I especially liked what you said about ‘theatricality’ and Dent as a pawn. Two things that I hadn’t thought about too much.
Worth the wait.
on Aug 04 2008 @ 11:24 pm 2. Kristena said …
Have I told you lately that you’re brilliant?
If anyone wants to see the man behind the mask (meaning Evan), you can see the back of his legs as he’s making bread in our bread machine over at http://www.thimblythings.com/2008/07/31/summer-picnik/. Enjoy!
on Aug 04 2008 @ 11:30 pm 3. Alexander Coleman said …
Good review, Evan. Enjoyed reading this a great deal.
Like you–and I even said this in a whole posting by itself–The Dark Knight was the first film since I began Coleman’s Corner in Cinema that required two viewings before I felt prepared to tackle it.
I particularly like your analysis of Harvey Dent, pre- and post-disfigurement and descent.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 12:04 am 4. Alexander Coleman said …
Also, I love your emphasis on the score, which is being cruelly underappreciated.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 7:08 am 5. Maurice said …
I saw “The Dark Knight” three times on opening day. I’ve never done that before, although I came close with “Spiderman” but I was booted out for not having the third ticket. The fact that I had $3700.00 of concessions around me got me no relief, just a quizzical raise of the eyebrow from the guy who had to refill all of the butter dispensers I emptied. I’m sure he thought me some sort of pervert who was collecting lube oil for a later Roman saturnalia out back on my Slip-n-Slide. Creep.
I was most fortunate to see this film the first time with few people attending and was transfixed at was displayed before me. Rarely does an opportunity for an immediate character study present it’s self and I was lucky to be able to see what Master Ledger brought to bat and, let me tell you, brothers, it is now a whole new hockey game on the Gotham ice. This cat turned the bag inside out as he made his escape and has changed the canvas that others will be painting their images of a comic book villain on.
Clearly, he is insane and that is what drives his machine. Did you notice how he sucked at his cheeks or (worse) constantly had his tongue on his lips? Why? Because he likes how it feels to touch his scars. They are the anchor that his tugboat of madness is tied to. Maybe there’s a happy thought that creeps in or, in a moment, he might feel good about himself. All he need do is flick his taster on what drives his insanity to quell it. Better yet, do it out of habit and that will keep positive feelings at bay. Genius.
Honestly, had I not know it was Heath, I would not have recognized this performer. Those in attendance at that first show with me seemed to be as stunned at his interpretation of the greatest villain ever conceived as was I. In later shows (four more so far), much of what he did solicited laughter, which was more misplaced than Clinton’s cigar. What were they laughing at? Is it really funny to see someone killed with a pencil? Did they not see the grotesqueness of that scar where he’d sewn the phone into the henchman’s chest? It looked like a drunk Apache had sewn together a moccisin. Even the potato peeler has grim connotation to it’s use. This is a sick, twisted mind at work, a sinister, deranged psyche that did what it would on whim. He likes what he’s doing but he’s not having any fun doing it. There’s no mischief, no prankish humor, none of the antics we are used to. Just a psychopathic need to purge his rage, but, only so he can refill the tank anew. You know who this reminded me of? Hannibal Lecter, which is exactly how my gut has reacted through out the many viewings.
Isn’t this really what the Joker has been for 30 years? Shouldn’t we have expected that at some juncture of space and time a true image of this psycho would land at our feet like a spent rocket booster after a shuttle launch? Why have we been pussy-footing around what we knew to be the truth? Because we all feared that the man who laughs was also the man who slit your loved one’s throat and chuckled like a good natured uncle. It’s an evil that leaves an oily residue to anything it touches. Nobody wants that in a film. Try to watch “American Psycho” and see if you can muster any positive feeling for the character. You’d have a better chance of jumping a shark filled tank with Rod Kimble’s moped.
Where Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” redefined the image of Batman for everyone, Heath Ledger has done the same thing for not only the Joker, but for every comic book villain to come. I should doubt that anyone putting pen to paper for any graphic novel will not have their view skewed towards how their characters will look on film. I can even imagine that, after what has happened with “Sin City” and “300”, writers will be studying Mamet in order to get their dialog filmed. The realism that comics have flirted with will become the norm. Darkness has now come to roost in our cartoon perception.
People, these guys aren’t really humorous, cuddly or eccentric. We can’t be put off by of their shiny cold guns, colorful exploding boomerangs or machine gun umbrellas that match their spats. They are sociopathic lunatics that want what they want and you can go to hell, which is where they will send you if you haven’t come to Jesus like me. Lex Luthor hates Superman and wants him dead. The Red Skull never once had a plan, plot or idea that didn’t revolve around killing Captain America. Darkseid wants us all under his thumb. Don’t get me started on Dr Doom. Superheroes are only as big as the villains they face, i.e.; that which does not kill you makes you stronger. Face it: This Joker has been nailed and we will all reap the benefits of the revelation for the rest of our lives. Villains will now be taken more seriously than Wesley Snipe’s next tax audit.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 7:20 am 6. Maurice said …
Sorry. Too much jabbering. I forgot to conclude with what a great review you posted, man. You obviously spent time in thought about this and it is reflected in the writing.
As an aside, the quote Batman makes to the wannabe is “I’m not wearing hockey pants” which is way funny if you’ve ever seen a pair.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 7:58 am 7. Kristena said …
Goodness, Maurice. You’re brilliant too.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 8:33 am 8. Evan Derrick said …
“Did you notice how he sucked at his cheeks or (worse) constantly had his tongue on his lips? Why? Because he likes how it feels to touch his scars.”
Fantastic observation, Maurice. I hadn’t even thought of that. This film is so layered, so nuanced, that it completely rewards multiple viewings. What a rich creation Nolan has authored.
And I agree with you on the audience’s laughter. The midnight audience I saw it with the first time was even cheering at some of the Joker’s antics. Cheering! I didn’t understand it. I was fascinated by him, yes, but I was mostly horrified. I don’t think I laughed once.
And lest you think I’ve forgotten, I’m still planning to put pen to paper on Pan’s Labyrinth. As you can see here, I’ve been somewhat busy lately.
And the “hockey pants” correction has been duly noted! I thought that ‘brands’ sounded off, but it’s what I heard when I was taking my notes.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:23 am 9. Sam Juliano said …
Evan, congratulations.
I don’t know the full breath of your critical output, but I would have to spectualate that this probing, analytical piece of criticism is your finest essay to date. Why do I assume this? Well, for starters, it is whopping in scope and length, it examines every component of this film with laser-like proficiency, and it exhibits a contagious level of personal passion. In short, it is masterpiece of film criticism, and the finest single essay I have yet read from all the terrific young people I have met through LIC. That may not seem like a definitive compliment, but when you consider the talent we’ve both been treated to here (including your own distinguished staff at Movie Zeel), it’s a magisterial one. Your wife is right to be super-proud of you–you have earned all the praise you can get. I thought I wrote a strong piece on THE DARK KNIGHT, but you have blown me right out of the water with this. Kudos!!!
I particularly loved the paragraphs starting with:
“The structural beauty and thematic symmetry……,” “Bruce Wayne is a man of conflict,”…..”But what he is not, however, is a symbol for anarchy and chaos….” and “Heath Ledger is a force of nature..”
This review stands alongside the best professional reviews we have had so far on THE DARK KNIGHT.
It is reason for celebration.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 11:05 am 10. Evan Derrick said …
Thank you for the high praise, Sam. It makes all the work worth it.
But don’t sell your own work short, my friend. You write an exemplary piece yourself. Your final paragraph, in particular, is worth unpacking a bit.
“The reason why The Dark Knight ultimately, despite its terrific execution, doesn’t warrant the highest rating, is because the genre it is part of is (regardless of the attempts and success of intellectualizing so much of it) just isn’t really important in a cinematic sense–it isn’t spiritual or emotional or philosophical or life-changing. But in the pantheon of popular culture and entertainment movies, this is a piece par excellence.”
You ask a great question: can a superhero film, a genre that is somewhat gimmicky, rise to the level of great art? Is The Dark Knight as worthy of a Best Picture win as The Departed or No Country For Old Men? I think this is definitely worth discussing more in depth.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 11:23 am 11. Luke Harrington said …
Hey Evan, thanks for giving me a chance to exercise my intellectual snobbery!
I’ve been airing my dissatisfaction this film in the various corners of the blogospere ever since it came out, so I think I’ll just rip off something that I posted on As Cool as a Fruitstand several days ago:
Obviously, I’m in the minority in this position, but TDK was a bit of a letdown to me because it was trying so hard to not be Burton and Schumacher’s series, or the 1960s TV show, or any of a myriad of other things, that it forgot to be what it was.
It’s my opinion that the best of genre film is as good as or better than the best of “art” film (Spider-Man 2, for me, represents the best example of superhero-movie-as-art), but in practice, snobbery wins out. The venerated Academy could never give a picture like TDK — even if it were as great as everyone thinks it is — more than a single token award, for fear of becoming a laughingstock (this is why Beauty and the Beast got snubbed, after all). In other words, canon is predisposed to certain genres because people are biased.
By the way Evan, I have to say that this review is a masterpiece. It’s everything the movie should have been — thrilling, moving, insightful. Go fig.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 11:43 am 12. Alison Flynn said …
Great job, Evan. This is an excellent review and I enjoyed reading it. Your analysis of every aspect of this film was indepth and spot on.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 11:55 am 13. Alexander Coleman said …
Indeed, no matter what one’s opinion of the film, Evan’s review is splendidly in-depth and demonstrates many of the film’s finest points.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 4:09 pm 14. joel said …
I’m tired of reading criticisms of the film that simply break down to “it’s a comic book movie, so why so serious?” It’s a patronizing dismissal that could be applied to any genre of film, TV show, book, etc. It’s such an arrogant attitude it really doesn’t warrant a response, so consider this a lecture from my inner pimply-faced 15 year old.
Anyway…
Evan, this is a really spectacular review. I’m still digesting it, but I think your summation of Wayne’s addiction to the Batman, his increasing mania, Two Face’s character arc, and the Joker’s general disposition towards the two is very enlightening.
One thing that struck me on my second viewing is that the Joker is so frustrated with the “schemers,” those trying to “control” the world with their “plans.” The Joker’s embrace of anarchy and destruction is a direct response/result/answer to Batman’s desperate attempt to control the criminal element of Gotham. The Joker is a twisted 12-stepper’s desire to quell Batman’s control freak addiction. I’m not saying the Joker’s methods are right, only that the Batman’s acting out is having dire consequences for Gotham, and as you so eloquently state this irony is a major theme of the film.
Excellent job.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 7:42 pm 15. Luke Harrington said …
Joel, I can only assume that first paragraph was directed at me, but you seem to have missed my point entirely. I have no problem at all with comic book films, and I think I said as much in my post. (Come to think of it, what is a “comic book film”? Is Brideshead Revisited a “book film”?)
My beef with The Dark Knight was that it was afraid to be a comic book film (or at least afraid to be perceived as one). Nolan had apparently taken a page from “How to Make a Serious Film 101″ here — the whole thing felt like him jumping up and down and yelling “These are my themes!!!” over and over. Not only did the end result completely lack subtlety, but it was so busy obsessing over its possession of themes that it failed to examine them in any compelling way.
Most critics seem to have fallen for Warner Bros.’s hype machine hook, line, and sinker, and given the film a pass simply because it has themes (and never mind if it does anything interesting with them), but I felt surprisingly empty after viewing it. I just couldn’t figure out what everyone was so excited about. Meh.
Keep in mind that I’m completely wrong here. The Interblag said so.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 8:09 pm 16. Peter M. said …
I am on Sam’s e mail network, and I must thank him for the advice to read Evan Derick’s awesome Dark Knight review. Sam is right. This is easily as good as any review a professional newspaper critic has written. I bet Evan will soon be headed to the big time. I saw the film, and I am completely in agreement with you.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 8:37 pm 17. Haiku Girl said …
I enjoyed the Dark Knight, and do think it deserves praise for making an entertaining film but….
I just don’t get the unconditional love people are pouring all over the film.
When I think back on the film, the one scene that keeps poping into my mind was the BatGarage conversation between Alfred and Bruce. The editing of the facial shots jumping back and forth was brutal.
I so wish I got the same experience that everyone else got… but I didn’t. So Sad.
PS. I will also praise Evan for a very good review.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 8:57 pm 18. Sam Juliano said …
Joel:
You are only 15 years old? I am stunned, floored!!! You possess this level of brilliance, analytical acumen, vocabulary and knowledge at that age. That is really something.
And you make a good point with that ‘patronizing’ strain. I used it to a degree, even though I went 4/5 with the film, but one should rather say it “ain’t my taste” rather than grasping for a disclaimer, that artistically “judges” the genre.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:22 pm 19. Luke Harrington said …
Haiku Girl,
I’m with you on this one. I didn’t dislike the film, but was it really that great? I’m willing to give credit where credit is due — the marketing behemoth behind this picture was brilliant, and it managed to blind everyone to the fact that as a film it was merely slightly-above-average. At this point I’m just waiting a decade or two for VH1’s I Love the 2000’s, where undoubtedly, some third-rate celebrities will reminisce about how silly it was that everyone got all worked up about The Dark Knight.
Of course, if this movie becomes curriculum at film schools in as many years…I’ll eat my words.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:29 pm 20. Phillip Johnston said …
So are you saying that TDK is the new Titanic? Everyone flocks to see it multiple times now, but 10 years later it’ll be hard to find one person who likes it anymore?
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:30 pm 21. Luke Harrington said …
Yeah, actually, I almost said that. But it seemed a *bit* melodramatic. (Pun half-intended.) I’ll admit TDK is a better film than Titanic.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:32 pm 22. Evan Derrick said …
Luke, Haiku Girl, by no means are you required to think this is the second coming of comic book films. I found it magnificent, but that doesn’t mean your experience is invalid.
I spent the majority of my review arguing for why the script, and film, are works of symmetrical and thematic brilliance, rather than just pouring hyperbole all over it like salsa on a tasty burrito (although, to be fair, there is some hyperbole in there). I hope my arguments were somewhat convincing, and it may behoove you to watch it a second time with eyes not glazed over by the hype machine. A second viewing might unexpectedly reward you.
on Aug 05 2008 @ 10:34 pm 23. Evan Derrick said …
Oh, and thankyou everyone for the kind words. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 12:07 am 24. Haiku Girl said …
Yes but…. I really do wish I felt like everyone else about this film. I adore those rare moments when a film so engrosses me, I forget everything but the story thats bouncing of a screen and playing out inside my head.
I find I experience that a couple times a year, and those films are burnt into my memory.
The more I think about TDK the more I compare it to an episode of CSI or Law and Order. I enjoy it, then forget about it… In till I see it on reruns and watch it again.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 9:52 am 25. Ruth Derrick said …
In the past I have experienced what Luke and Haiku Girl have recently felt–disappointment with a film that nearly everyone raves about. This time, I avoided reading about it, including Evan’s review, before seeing it(and I’m late to the party just attending yesterday), but I had heard lots of buzz about Ledger’s performance. While I was not blown away, I appreciated the complexity of the film. All this to say, there should be differences of opinion among schooled movie viewers. If everyone agrees, then some of you/us would be unnecessary.
I found it interesting that Joker was chaotic in his appearance (not the slick make-up job of Nicholas in the earlier version) and often in his rambling. But he was precise in his execution of the acts that created that chaos. So does that mean insanity and genius are just two sides of the same coin?
I will say that I appreciated the film much more after reading your review, Evan. I think I might have picked up on some things after a second viewing, but your insight is remarkable and well put.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 10:07 am 26. Adam said …
Even after two viewings, I liked it but didn’t love it. You’ve got an impassioned, defined defense here, as like seemingly everyone else, I’m on the DK train where Ledger is concerned. But I guess where I feel disappointed is that madness, dichotomy, “sides of the same coin,” “going too far,” self-delusion, are all de rigeur when it comes to both Batman and the Nolans (The Prestige, Memento, Insomnia).
I’m convinced that the film could have benefitted from a, dare I say, even more epic treatment and elongation into two films, roughly split at the major cliffhanger involving Rachel and Dent. Also, much of the lines are portentous, on-the-nose, “comic book” dialogue, especially those of the Old Men for Whom There is No Country, Caine and Freeman (get well, Morgan!). Finally, action sequences are clearly not Chris Nolan’s forte, which, despite a few iconic shots, is detrimental to an action picture.
Despite your retince in the House Next Door’s comments section, Evan, I would like to hear a few thoughts about the contemporary politics angle.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 10:13 am 27. joel said …
Comparing it to Titanic is either a huge mis-step or perfect comparison, only time will tell. For me, the difference was that I never wanted to see Titanic twice and felt it was one of the most over-rated movie-going experiences I’ve ever had. All hyperbole and melodrama that is about 150 minutes too long. Sink the boat and move on.
I just disagree that The Dark Knight didn’t a do a good job of trying to get at its themes, but I could accept if you didn’t agree with how those were handled. Simply saying it was trying too hard and it was too serious still seems to be saying you’d have preferred one of the Schumacher Batman’s with everything drawn in broad strokes, white hats versus black hats.
Guess I’m missing your point. What do you expect a comic book movie to be? I think it can be more than just simple popcorn entertainment.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 10:41 am 28. joel said …
“I just disagree that The Dark Knight didn’t a do a good job of trying to get at its themes, but I could accept if you didn’t agree with how those were handled.”
To be clear Luke, I can easily accept if you didn’t like it period. Your opinion is just as valid as mine and I don’t expect to change your mind. I’m just trying to get at what your expectations of a comic book movie actually are, since you keep bringing that distinction up.
Sorry, I was in a hurry with my last post, trying to get out the door for work. Should have taken a second to edit myself.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 11:15 am 29. Luke Harrington said …
Well Joel, as I previously stated, I disagree somewhat that “comic book film” constitutes a genre — after all, the only thing all “comic book films” have in common is that they’re based on comic books. Is “movies based on novels” a genre? Is “movies based on videogames” a genre?
My problem with TDK was neither that it was a “comic book film,” nor was it that it was “too serious” for a “comic book film”…it was that it was consciously so. It had something to prove — something that it failed to prove. In other words, it was pretentious.
Adam put it very well a couple of posts up: these are the same themes we’ve been getting from Batman, over and over, since the 1930’s (or, at the very least, since Frank Miller comandeered the series in the 1980’s). Stating them over again — even if you state them well — is still just stating them over again. Additionally, TDK was far too willing to fall back on superhero conventions — such as having its villain set up mildly interesting dilemmas for the hero and/or the civillians — when it ran out of ideas.
You can transplant all of this convention into a more “realistic”/”gritty”/whatever sort of setting, but doing so is essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, so to speak. The Batman franchise has been yelling “The notion of a hero who puts on a mask and acts as a vigillante raises significant questions about the nature of justice, identity, and sanity!!!!” at us for 70 years now. I get it, already. Do we need yet another movie to tell us this? (And, if so, what does that say about or collective intelligence?)
As for my Titanic comparison…well, I only said it when Phillip backed me into it. My track record is pretty good, though. I was one of the first people to point out that Limp Bizkit is a bunch of talentless hacks. (I know it sounds obvious now, but I was a freshman in high school and Significant Other was at the top of the charts.)
on Aug 06 2008 @ 11:52 am 30. Evan Derrick said …
Adam, thanks for sharing your thoughts. On the contemporary politics angle, there are parallels to current affairs that are inarguable. The Joker’s videotaped torture recalls recorded extremist executions, the cellphone-sonar tool recalls the Bush administrations illegal wiretapping policies, etc. etc.. The similarities are subtle enough that they don’t reach “ripped from the headlines” levels of obviousness (the beginning of season 3 for Battlestar Galactica suffered a bit from being too on the nose), and for that I am thankful. They are somewhat organic and not really designed to be a pure metaphor for George Bush, as some writers have suggested.
However, it is possible that such post-9/11 imagery (there I go again with that phrase
) is exactly what is drawing audiences into this in record numbers. It may be tapping into an unseen malaise running through America, referencing people’s anxieties in a way that is comforting and thrilling. At this juncture, however, that is all pure conjecture. Only time and history can make those kinds of determinations.
Looking back at Star Wars, it’s obvious that one of the reasons it was so successful is that it boldly went against the nihilism and cynicism that had pervaded much of 70’s cinema. Yes, people had been angry and disillusioned over Vietnam, but I think they were getting tired of their movies beating them over the head with such fatalism. Enter Star Wars, a film about pure good and pure evil, filled with the simplest of archetypes, and all of a sudden – WHAM! – you have something that ties directly into the pipeline of the American psyche. People wanted something to hope in again, and Star Wars gave it to them.
We can only see that sociological effect now with 30 years separating us from the film. In 20-30 years we will be able to make the same examination of The Dark Knight, and at that point it might be seen as a film that represented a snapshot of America’s anxieties and fears in 2008.
But, like I said, all conjecture. Interesting, but difficult to substantiate or argue for with any kind of significant weight.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 11:58 am 31. Evan Derrick said …
And Mom (i.e., Ruth
), that point is exactly what I’m talking about in regards to the thematic symmetry of the film. Insanity and genius are easily two sides to the same coin, and the Joker, Batman, and Harvey Two-Face are all brilliant and insane (to varying degrees). In fact, if I had thought of that, I would have put it in my review.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 12:21 pm 32. joel said …
Well arguing the validity of comic book films as a genre seems kinda silly to me. Pulp novels of the 20’s and 30’s lead directly into the Noir genre. Considering Moviezeal is currently celebrating that genre of films, I think we can safely say that adapting a printed form to film, following certain rules and conventions within that form in a series of films, constitutes a genre.
I don’t intend to disqualify your powers of prediction, but I knew Limp Bizkit and their ilk were ripping off Faith No More the second they appeared on MTV. It was depressing that Fred Durst got any credit for the ground Mike Patton broke years before.
I don’t agree that TDK is simply treading water previous Batman films have addressed. None of the previous Batman films have bothered to address the issues (in any depth certainly) of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight nor have they placed the Batman in the political context of Nolan’s films.
Dismissing it for attempting to deal with issues that have been generally acknowledged in the comic books seems equally silly. I suppose the Coen Brothers shouldn’t have bothered with No Country for Old Men…since, you know, Cormac McCarthy wrote that book and all.
I think there’s far more to the film than you’re giving it credit for, even if it gets at some of those points too blatantly in some respects and has some narrative weaknesses. Neither Batman Begins or The Dark Knight are perfect films, but narrative weaknesses aside I believe they are reinterpreting existing characters while remaining true to the bigger mythos of those characters. It’s been fun to watch, for me at least.
I’m not willing to stamp TDK as some sort of masterpiece (as you stated previously, time will have to judge that). But I believe it has far more depth and weight than you’re giving it credit for. I only wish I had time to get into all those points, but I’ll let Evan’s review speak for itself.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 1:04 pm 33. Luke Harrington said …
I was totally (or at least, mostly) joking about the Limp Bizkit thing…you don’t have to read too much into that.
I do think TDK was a good film. In terms of the modest things it attempts to do, it succeeds pretty well (I just wish it would wave the “THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!” flag a little less desperately). Odds are, if it had flopped, I’d be defending it at the moment…but you can’t blame me for taking a stand against the crazy fan boys. Any way you look at it, though, it’s still just a rehash of a rehash of a rehash, albeit with a few good performances. Certainly well-done, but nothing to write home about.
The problem with your “noir” analogy is that “pulp novels of the 20’s and 30’s” is a genre, whereas “comic books” is a medium. If you want to talk about “superhero movies” as a genre, fine — but I’m not ready to say that Batman = Spider-Man = Sin City = Persepolis = American Splendor, just because they’re all based on comic books, anymore than I’m ready to say Gone with the Wind = The Maltese Falcon = Bridget Jones’s Diary = The Bourne Identity simply because they’re all based on novels. Maybe I’m slpitting hairs here, but I think it’s an important distinction.
Aside from that…I think we’ll have to agree to disagree (which is what these things always come down to).
on Aug 06 2008 @ 1:59 pm 34. Kristena said …
I just want to point out that comic books aren’t the same as graphic novels. Are they? And don’t most “comic books” feature some superhero of sorts? And some good v. evil stuff? Or am I completely wrong here? I am a girl and all.
“An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure.” -Steel Magnolias
on Aug 06 2008 @ 2:03 pm 35. Luke Harrington said …
I don’t think anyone really agrees on the distinction there. There are “graphic novels” that feature superheroes (Batman: Year One and Watchmen, to name a couple on everybody’s minds right now). And there are “comic books” that don’t feature superheroes (Looney Tunes, Richie Rich, etc…y’know, the stuff that’s actually “comic”).
As I understand it, a “graphic novel” is a comic book that’s pretentious.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 2:37 pm 36. Kristena said …
Okay. I gotcha. But I think when people are talking about “comic book movies,” they are not referring to Looney Tunes or any other such nonsense.
Batman may be in a graphic novel, but he found his origins in comic books. Graphic novels take on all manner of themes and purposes, just like regular fiction. But from what I’ve observed, comic books (or what most people think of when they hear the term) are serial in nature and involve superheroes v. super-villains. Even if Batman decides to make an appearance in an unillustrated novel, he’ll still be a comic book character. All that said, I don’t see why “comic book movies” wouldn’t be considered a genre since they derive from a fairly consistent source. Perhaps you’re right though, and we should change our terminology to “superhero movies.” It seems like semantics to me.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 2:48 pm 37. Kristena said …
P.S. I don’t think pretension is a synonym for gravity or intelligence. I’ve actually read some graphic novels (per Evan’s recommendation) that I’ve enjoyed as much as a classic novel. I personally love the mixed-media approach to storytelling and such goodies as allusions to Shakespeare or even pop culture. You should give a chance (if you haven’t).
on Aug 06 2008 @ 2:54 pm 38. Evan Derrick said …
Ok, let me clear up the confusion about “comic books” and “graphic novels.” Firstly, most graphic novels are simply reprints of comics. For example, the ones that Luke listed (Batman: Year One and Watchmen) were originally published as comics, only to be collected later in “graphic novel” form. A more accurate term for those might be “trade paperbacks.”
However, there are graphic novels that are initially published this way. Maus and all of Daniel Clowes work falls into that category. They are, typically, much more literary and abstract in execution (or ‘pretentious’ as Luke called them
).
Hope that clears things up a bit.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 2:58 pm 39. Luke Harrington said …
No, I agree. But not all “graphic novels” will be grave and intelligent, just as not all “comic books” will be superfluous and stupid. But ultimately, it’s the publisher’s choice of whether to call a work a “graphic novel” or not…and if they choose to do so, they are implicitly claiming that the work has some sort of gravity and intelligence. In other words, the marketing department is being pretentious, whether the work deserves it or not.
There are graphic novels I greatly admire. The work of Art Spiegelman, for instance.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 3:00 pm 40. Luke Harrington said …
^
The above was directed toward Kristena. Looks like Evan beat me by four minutes.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 3:03 pm 41. Susan Hated Literature » Blog Archive » links for 2008-08-06 [delicious.com] said …
[...] The Dark Knight | MovieZeal (tags: The.Dark.Knight Batman Christopher.Nolan) No tag for this post. [...]
on Aug 06 2008 @ 3:27 pm 42. Andrew S. said …
A film review/critique of remarkable perception. My good friend Sam Juliano couldn’t have said it better.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 4:08 pm 43. G said …
As probably the most comics obsessed fan here:
The term graphic novel is pretty 1995. It was an attempt to dress up comics in a way that sounded acceptable to the reading public. As such, it once did have the pretensions that Luke and Kristena seem to be pointing to.
The term now, however, has taken on a few more meanings. First, any collection of “comics” is now referred to (generally) as a graphic novel. Publishers use the term “Original Graphic Novel” (OGN) to denote material that was not published in pamphlet format first, but I’ve never heard that term ever used except in press releases.
The general sense I get in the comics world is that graphic novel is a pretty dumb term – it holds no meaning, and was used only to distinguish things like Maus from things like Superman – even though there are Superman OGNs, and Maus was originally published as a comic, not as a trade paperback. It is still used, merely because we don’t have any other word that works to separate books that have spines from the “floppies” that come out monthly.
The term “trade paperback” is problematic too, because often “comics” are first collected as hardcovers. I’ve seen people refer to hardbacks as trade paperbacks, trying to make “trade” the general term for any comics collection with a spine, which makes my head spin.
Outside the comics world, the term graphic novel is still largely in play, because your ordinary person would rather read about graphic novels than comics, and your average professor would rather teach ENGL 204: Graphic Fiction than ENGL 204: Comics. But when used in this manner, graphic novels is generally interchangeable with the term “comics.”
There, I’m done. Any questions, concerns, or revisions?
Oh yeah, and Luke, I’m with you: the term “comic book movie” is the stupidest term ever and should be retired. And for the reasons I’ve just outlined, “graphic novel movie” wouldn’t help much either. After all, Maus was a comic, and even Persepolis was published in 4 issues originally, not the two “graphic novels” that we have over here.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 4:28 pm 44. Kristena said …
Thanks for the info! All I know on the subject I’ve gleaned from Evan (which was certainly helpful). But this history lesson helps me understand why you guys would be discussing the terminology the way you are. Of course, if the term “graphic novel” derived from a marketing department in a publishing house, then, yes, there is some definite pretension there.
And the logical conclusion is that it doesn’t make sense to lump TDK in with all other films whose stories originate from the same medium. I was coming at the topic from a rather unschooled perspective as I assume most Americans would. My apologies.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 5:18 pm 45. G said …
Oh, no apologies necessary. These are tortured terms with a long history and multiple definitions. But hopefully my attempt to straighten them out made sense.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 5:45 pm 46. Luke Harrington said …
Yeah, thanks for the insight G. I kinda got the vibe that most of these terms came from ephemeral realities in the business that disappeared much faster than the lexicon.
I also get the vibe the “comic book movie” is a phrase coined by snobs seeking to denigrate the genre…
(And yes, I’m aware of the irony in my referring to it as a “genre.”)
on Aug 06 2008 @ 9:26 pm 47. G said …
Out of curiosity Kristena, what graphic novels has Evan recommended? I’m always ready to recommend comics, and I’m curious what you’ve read. Persepolis? Blankets? Maus? Box Office Poison? There’s a whole world of comics out there for anyone who likes any manner of storytelling, and one of my greatest pleasures is showing it to people who wouldn’t have otherwise known that.
on Aug 06 2008 @ 9:33 pm 48. Miranda Wilding said …
Evan, that was EPIC. Truly…
I didn’t care for TDK AT ALL and your review was far more enjoyable to read than the motion picture was to sit through.
For me at least.
BTW…
I’m EXTREMELY impressed by Kristena’s contributions in this thread. She is extraordinarily articulate and possesses a very fine mind.
(I’m certain that you would be aware of these monumental facts. But…we didn’t know.)
Why is it that Kristena and Julia aren’t contributors here at MZ?
(Unless, of course, they don’t wish to be. In that case, completely understandable. But unfortunate.)
This is, of course, not my site.
But if you boys are having difficulty keeping up with everything coming down the pike, it’s always good to be open to various possibilities…
on Aug 07 2008 @ 9:25 am 49. Evan Derrick said …
It’s funny you should mention that, Miranda, as Kristena and I are currently co-writing an article together. And yes, she is tremendously intelligent which is one of the reasons why I married her.
As to why she and Julia don’t write on the site, we’ve actually toyed with the idea of them doing something but never gotten around to it. Kristena also has her own blog which she pours an incredible amount of time into, so she has little enough time to write on my site (you can find her blog through her name on her comments – it’s probably the most adorable thing of all time).
on Aug 07 2008 @ 10:21 am 50. Miranda Wilding said …
Good to know, Evan.
I just hate to see wasted potential. That’s all.
If you and Kristena are writing an article together, then that’s definitely something for us (as readers) to anticipate eagerly…
on Aug 07 2008 @ 10:59 am 51. Kristena said …
You guys are embarrassing me.
Thank you, Miranda. You’re very kind. And Evan- don’t lie. You married me for my mad good looks, and you know it.
Julia and I should start a column entitled “Redheaded Wives of Movie Zealots Metaphorically Bring It, Yo.”
on Aug 07 2008 @ 11:01 am 52. Luke Harrington said …
That’s the best name for a column ever.
EVER.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 1:42 pm 53. Miranda Wilding said …
You’re very welcome, Kristena.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 2:11 pm 54. Kristena said …
BTW, I’ve certainly considered writing for Movie Zeal. The main problem I have is that I simply don’t have enough knowledge of films, directors, producers, etc. and am afraid I don’t have anything new to bring to the table. But keeping up with the site thus far has been quite an education. In time, you may find me reviewing a girly movie every now and then. You know–bringing the appropriate perspective to the genre.
And likely still making fun of it.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 2:23 pm 55. Luke Harrington said …
When you do, make sure you get on Julia. She’s a fantastic writer with a whip-smart sense of humor, but she won’t believe me when I tell her that, of course…Well, that and she’s deathly afraid of becoming a celebrity. (Not that anyone at MZ is in danger of that.)
on Aug 07 2008 @ 2:40 pm 56. G said …
I’m pretty sure Sam is a celebrity now.
on Aug 07 2008 @ 7:19 pm 57. Kristena said …
We’re all celebrities to each other, right?
on Aug 14 2008 @ 6:14 am 58. T.S. said …
Absolutely stellar review… I’m a newcomer ’round these here parts, but I have enjoyed your blog tremendously and look forward to reading more.
on Aug 14 2008 @ 8:15 am 59. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for dropping by, T.S. Glad that you’ve come out of ‘lurking’ mode and commented. Would love to hear your voice on some of the noir films that we’ve been featuring, especially since you seem to focus on older classics on your own site.
on Dec 24 2008 @ 11:06 am 60. Jess said …
Evan, you are a great writer. Amazing review. It made me think even more about who the Joker already is and who Batman is becoming.
“The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules!”. Give Heath Ledger the Oscar.
on Dec 25 2008 @ 10:45 am 61. Evan Derrick said …
Why thank you, Jess. What a nice Christmas comment.
on Jan 05 2009 @ 12:53 am 62. Christian said …
Yes, an epic review Evan. Bravo. Since I finally just watched this sucker I can start reading all these great essays. Ultimately, I thought the film good, better than BATMAN BEGINS because we just get to the chase and best of all, no Joker origin! He just IS and everybody is down with that.
That said, I’m with Luke. The film tries so hard to be about 20 different things with so much angst that the only living person in the film has to be THE JOKER. And I do agree that Ledger is monumental. I think this is almost an actor-proof role (even Cesar Romero was a creepy effective Joker) but Heath is just fascinating to watch. I wish Bale were given as much to compete with. Eckhart is great as is that amazing make-up, but once he too rapidly becomes Two-Face, all he can do is shout as did Tommy Lee Jones.
Sadly, the action scenes are uninspired except for the truck chase perhaps, and I’m really itching to see a truly great Batman fight on film. Just copy Frank Miller’s panels. I found the Honk Kong scene silly and superfluous, like a Roger Moore Bond. It’s clear Nolan is more entranced by the vehicles.
I did enjoy it overall, but I’m anxious to see a stripped down Batman with more Gotham than Chicago. It was sad to watch the film and think, Can’t wait to see the Joker again, then realize…
on Jun 23 2010 @ 8:50 am 63. hydraulic presses said …
gives use a fantastic web page decent Gives bless you for the working hard to support myself
on Jan 04 2012 @ 2:25 pm 64. Sam said …
Sam…
[...]The Dark Knight | MovieZeal[...]…