I would say spoiler alert but everyone on Earth has seen this film and if you're going to waste your money liking this film you are an idiot.
Last night I went to see what I thought was going to be a Superhero movie. I left the theater feeling betrayed. Warner Brothers and D.C. comics tricked me into going to see a shitty, 3 hour cop movie/crime drama.
I was prepared for a movie with a darker tone even than 2005's Batman Begins. I really enjoyed Batman Begins. It had the splendor and wonder one expects from a superhero movie, while introducing a deeper, more adult atmosphere. The Dark Knight keeps the adult, but loses the splendor.
My issues with this film are numerous, so we'll begin with what I knew about it going in. They shot this film on location in Chicago. Gotham City is more than just a city. It carries with it a certain imagery of over the top gothic architecture. It is shiny on the top, and seedy on the bottom. This imagery was present in Tim Burton's films, as well as Batman Begins. The Dark Knight's Gotham City just looks like....Chicago. As a frequent visitor to the windy city I even found myself, during the film, calling out tourist locations.
Director Christopher Nolan made this creative choice to ground his audience in a certain reality, but guess what? I didn't go to see Batman for reality. I went to see a fantasy film. That it took place in a city I've been to took me out of the fantasy.
Secondly, this movie is too long. At nearly three hours, I found myself staring at the ceiling and making "get on with it already" hand motions. From a story telling perspective, this movie has six acts. Count them SIX! There's a first act, and a second, but then the story devolves with four seprate third acts. First they catch the Joker, then he gets away then they have to save Harvey and what's her name, then The Joker blows up a hospital then The Joker is going to blow up some boats. Jebus Shit, choose one! Choose one of those third acts and you have a winner. But Four? Jebus!
Prolonging the film even more, is the Harvey Dent B-story that doesn't even start until after the second third act. This plot really needed to be the next film in the series. Dent is a complex character, and Two-Face could have been a great main villain. But, stuck away in a movie about The Joker, the character was wasted. He only had one scene (as Two Face) with Batman, and by the time Two-Face was introduced, I was already ready to leave the theater already.
The aspect of The Dark Knight that made me truly realize how much I hated it is the violence. Two scenes in particular stand out. Once, Batman has to stop some S.W.A.T. team members from shooting some innocent people dressed as The Joker's henchmen. Instead of saying "Hey guys don't shoot the clowns!" He beats them up and strings them from a rope over the 30th story of a skyscraper. Are you kidding me? This Batman always takes the more violent way out (short of guns and killing of course).
The scene that almost made me walk out had Two-Face jamming a revolver in the earlobe of Commissioner Gordon's kid. Come on! I hate censorship but are we really a society that has fantasy movies where we threaten to kill kids? I want to see superhero movies with my kids, but my step-son will be 21 before he's able to watch this. Gimme a break! While I've been typing this blog I've seen 3 Batman related commercials on Nickelodeon. So are you making a movie for kids? You're advertising to them, and pointing guns at their brains.
The worst part about this film, and the thing that I keep harping on, is that it is not fantasy. It is not a superhero movie. It is a cop drama. The Joker is kind out of control, and Batman wears a suit, but otherwise its just an action movie starring Vin Diesel. "But Pirate Ninja, this is more like the comic books." Well, those comic books suck.
Okay, they may not suck, but if the writers at D.C. have decided to change Batman from a superhero then they have made a grave mistake. The "the comic books" you're talking about started in 1986, but the Batman character dates back to 1939. So you tell me which is a better representation of the character.
I like superhero movies. I do not like cop dramas. I do not like shoot-em-up, blow-em-up action flicks. I feel like I have been duped into spending money on a film that I would not have gone to had it not had a character named Batman.
Through all this panning I do have to say I did enjoy the acting in this film. Christian Bale is alright, Heath Ledger was phenomenal (as all accounts indicate) Aaron Eckhart was great, Maggie Gyllenhaal brought more to her performace as what's her name than Katie Cruise did, and even Morgan Freeman had more to do this time, including a moral choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
While I have to agree with some of your criticisms, I still liked the movie. The plot was all kinds of fucked up and you are definitely right about the two-face side story: I thought they were setting up the sequel. I thought Bale and Gyllenhaalllelalall weren't very good, but Ledger was so good that they probably suffered by comparison.
What I enjoyed about the movie (besides Ledger's performance) was the Joker's dialogue and motivation. He was demented and evil, but there was also a kernal of dark truth to his criticisms of society.
In the end, they could have replaced about 45 minutes of the middle and replaced it with about 15 minutes of the Joker's backstory (which wasn't really talked about at all) and I think it would have been a better movie, however, when compared to drivel like the Spiderman series, the problems that I have with this movie are trivial.
I haven't seen the Spiderman movies.
Don't bother. I only saw the first one and bits of the second and the jokes were hacky, the dialogue was campy and the whole package was cheese.
Post a Comment