The hype and expectations for the follow-up to Christopher Nolan's excellent reboot of the Batman series has been huge for several reasons. It couldn't possibly meet such expectations, could it? This is one of the rare cases where it does. I cannot imagine a better superhero film. This ain't Batman for the kiddies, it is the stuff of nightmares. It also proves that violence does not sway the ratings board, because the brutality of this film is vivid and stays with you. I guess as long as you don't use foul language and don't have any sex in your film, you can still get a PG-13 rating while having your villain drive a pencil through someone's eye socket or even having your "hero" drop someone from a balcony to break their leg during interrogation. I bet Batman could get lots of vital information out of our detainees at Guantanamo. Not that it bothers me, I love film violence. I'm just saying.
ABOVE: Batman and The Joker discuss their differences (and similarities). It is telling of a smart script that one of the highlights of the film is this conversation vs. some huge action set piece
Whereas 'Batman Begins' was a classy superhero origin story, 'The Dark Knight' raises the bar on the entire genre, upping the ante again just a couple of months after the witty 'Iron Man' had seemingly done the same thing. TDK is really an ensemble piece, with about seven important characters. The great thing about the complex and thoughtful script is that each of these main characters is given room to work and adds crucial elements to the story. Aaron Eckhart's crusading District Attorney Harvey Dent is given as much screen time as our hero Bruce Wayne/Batman, but we don't mind because Eckhart is fantastic. And any fan of the Batman mythos knows about Dent's fate. Each of these actors takes the material seriously, and it shows in the quality of work. Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Aaron Eckhart, the superbly understated Gary Oldman (Lt. Jim Gordon), Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes) and Eric Roberts (Maroni) each give pitch perfect performances.
ABOVE: Aaron Eckhart's on the edge DA Harvey Dent is as important to the film as Batman or The Joker.
I saw this on the IMAX, since six of the action sequences were filmed especially for IMAX viewing. It was beautifully filmed and a feast for the eyes to behold. You do not have to see it on the IMAX, it would look great on a regular screen too, but I was certainly glad I was in an IMAX theater when Batman was soaring over the skyline of Hong Kong (wow). Poetry on celluloid (although, they don't really use celluloid anymore, do they?)
ABOVE: The Joker offers Assistant DA Rachel Dawes some free facial surgery
All of this is prelude to Heath Ledger's turn as The Joker. I don't need to remind most of you that this was Ledger's final full performance. The prodigiously talented young actor died in January from an overdose of prescription drugs. So much has been said of his performance (demands for an oscar nomination, and so forth). I honestly wanted to dislike it, just a little, because the praises that have been heaped on this performance for months have become a little tiresome. Again, believe the hype. With all due respect to Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson, Ledger brings this iconic villain into brand new territory. It is a testament to his talent and emersion into the role that you walk into the theater thinking about Heath Ledger, but within five minutes it is simply The Joker that true Batman fans have always wanted on the screen. Ledger's Joker is no mere dangerous clown, he is a nihilistic sadist who believes only in pure anarchy. His motives are not money or power. He is driven by chaos. It is a great scene when the wise Alfred tells a puzzled Batman, who is still looking for traditional motivations in his new nemesis, that "some men just want to watch the world burn." Ledger's Joker is one of the greatest villains I have ever seen on the big screen.
I have read most of the important Batman graphic novels since the 1990's, and this Joker is the Joker of 'The Killing Joke' (Director Nolan supposedly gave Ledger the graphic novel for research. Ledger evidently studied it well.) Ledger's Joker gleefully uses death and mayhem for sociological experimentation. He has no real past (a funny recurring "joke" is his always changing story about how he got his hideous carved smile on his face, which is wonderfully reminiscent of Conrad Veidt in 1928's 'The Man Who Laughs'. Joker creates his own back story to suit the occasion, and seems to believe it every time he tells it.) It is a tribute to this whip smart script that the well worn psychological aspects of Batman vs. Joker (the good and bad sides of the same freakish coin) comes across as fresh and thought provoking. When The Joker chillingly tells Batman "you complete me," enough has transpired in the film to where it is a sincere and wonderfully twisted moment.
The film is relentlessly dark, although there are some funny Joker quips here or there, and a great Joker cross dressing scene. If there is any complaint I have at all is that at two and a half hours, it may run a tad long. But that is a small complaint when you are watching such compelling escapism, and honestly, I enjoyed every second of it.
**** out of *****
30 comments:
I might see this late tonight if I can swing it. From all I've heard from both critics and friends, it sounds intriguing. But...
"You complete me?" Really? That's the level of the script? Does he also tell Batman that he had him at hello?
It works in the moment. Ledger was also great in "Brokeback Mountain."
I actually snuck out of work a few hours early with some great anticipation for seeing this film. Everything that has been said is true. Ledger does deserve every accolade he has received so far. But my grade for this film, as shocking as it may be (and this was shocking to me), is incomplete. I honestly need to go back and watch this thing again. While the movie was extraordinarily dark and twisted, there are some moments that killed the momentum of the film. For instance (I am going to try not to give away any spoilers here):
1) Why did Gordon have to fake his own death? That did not make much sense to me, but really just added a new wrinkle that was unnecessary
2) the story behind Dent's anger toward Gordon was not developed enough and I thought that Dent's reaction was a bit forced
3) There was not enough pathos from Bruce for Rachel after the explosion. this is not Bale's fault, I just thought that he seemed to get over it quickly.
4) I did not have that much problem with the length, but I did with the sound mixing. Perhaps my concerns for the movie would be less if I could have heard hat they we saying half the time (Damn,I sound like an old man)
5) Also, while it is clear that the ledger stole the show, they never built up enough credibility to discus how he gained that much power that quickly.
That being said, I really do need to see the film again without my same level of anticipation. I think my view could be different
The true tension of the film came from the Nash equilibriums that the Joker would set up. Those were twisted
I'm going to see it again as well. My thoughts on your questions:
1. I think that Gordon faked his death to make sure that Dent got delivered. Recall that there were many corrupt cops on the force, even within Gordon's own elite unit (this is explained in much more detail in some of the graphic novels). It seems that Gordon had to "not be a factor", as in not be traceable and followable by the corrupt cops. The easiest way to do that would be to take himself out of the picture, yet still be close to the scene.
Again, the graphic novel 'The Long Halloween' gives the best story of Dent's arc. In the graphic novel, and it is hinted at in the film, Dent's anger towards both Gordon and Batman stems from the fact that he feels they let him down (and "the system" let him down) just when he was about to do the most good. That is part of what fuels his rage and to where he fatalistically decides to give all important decisions, especially those dealing with life and death, over to pure chance. Of course, the film adds the Rachel Dawes thing, which I found less convincing than simply giving up on working within the system.
I had problems with the sound mixing in my theater as well. The musical score at times overwhelmed the dialogue, especially in the final scene. I was wondering whether that was in my theater or a problem elsewhere as well.
I disagree with you on wanting more on Joker's backstory. The less mundane facts you know about him, the better. I get tired of the need of so many superhero films to "explain" everything and everybody. I kinda like the fact that he was just...there. It fits the character. Chaotic and random. And I liked how they played on that with his ever changing explanation of his own past.
Oh I agree with you that I liked how they made his backstory unclear. I thought that added to the "randomness" of it. My point was that when the film first starts he is a lone mad man who manages to manipulate a couple of lowlife to rob a bank, but by the end, he is the mastmind of a huge criminal empire. The path from A to B was not that clear. I actually wish they spent MORE time giving some story on how he manipulated organized crime to his whims.
I remember I had the smae problem with the sound during the first film. It was not until I saw it on TV that I actually picked up on some of the more sublte dialogue
I guess they could have spent some more time on that, but they did explain some of it, and you could kind of connect the dots for the rest. The movie was already 2 and a half hours long. His rise was shown in that he was even more ruthless than the organized crime figures that he fought / did deals with. Recall that it was Maroni who set him loose because Joker told them that he was the only one who could kill Batman. as Alfred said, they were so desperate that they made a deal with a man that they "did not understand." And you saw how he dismantled and took over the black gang, and then later how he took over another gang. I think he gained more and more power by taking over these gangs (and, presumably, their resources).
I like how Pocky says, "I'm going to try not to give away any spoilers...oh, but, Gordon fakes his own death, and Rachel dies in an explosion."
Pocky, I'm not sure if you're really clear on the concept of "spoilers".
And, apparently, Heath Ledger plays The Joker in this film! Thanks so much for that information!
I did try. I was just not very good.
Here is another spoiler. Superman makes a brief appearance. It is awkward.
I thought the same thing (on Pocky's non-spoiler spoilers), but true fans should have seen it by the weekend anyway.
Who here is claiming to be a true Batman fan?
Besides, I prefer to avoid the theater and only watch movies available on Blu-Ray, on my new 50 inch plasma television, through my new 7.1 channel sound system.
That being said, I did buy Batman Begins this past weekend and watch that...on my luxurious leather couch...without all of the other yahoos whose company I would have had to pay $20 or so in order to enjoy.
As nice as your TV is, I doubt it compares to an IMAX screen. As far as movie crowds go, it depends on the nature of the crowd. Seeing "The Dark Knight" on Friday with lots of excited fans, that added to the experience. Made it feel more like an event.
I know how apathetic you are when it comes to technology, Dez. However, the advances that have occurred in home theater are practically wiping out any legitimate reasons that one might have had in the past to go see a movie in the theater.
When you consider the cost (tickets, snacks, etc...), plus the inconvenience (leaving my house, dealing with people, etc...), it just doesn't make sense anymore. For the same price, I can buy a new Blu-Ray disc that I can keep forever and watch over and over again.
Does the theater have better video quality? Absolutely not. On a really good high definition TV, you should feel as if you could put your hand right into the screen. You don't get that at the theater. The only advantage that the theater has is size, and a 50 inch screen from a viewing distance of ten feet or so at home is plenty large.
Is the sound quality better at the theater? Obviously not. You and Pocky have just spent time complaining that you couldn't even hear some of the dialogue in the film. I don't have that problem at home. The explosions still shake my walls, but I can hear every word, because I have complete control over the levels.
The truth is I will most likely go see The Dark Knight at the theater, but only for one reason. Because, I would really like to see it now. I don't want to wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray. That's the only advantage that a movie theater has anymore...immediacy.
Now, The Dark Knight is a bit of a special case, because as you said, there are parts of it that were filmed specifically for the IMAX screen. However, that is clearly not the case for most films. And, honestly, I'm pretty sure there's only one theater in Houston actually showing the film on an IMAX screen. So, even if I do go to see it in the theaters, the odds of me going to that specific theater are very small.
Bottom line...99% of the time, watching a movie at my house is a more enjoyable experience than watching the same movie at a theater. You should come over some time and watch something...I'll convert you.
Very good arguments. However, unlike the home theater, I don't have to pay $10,000 to buy the screen, projector and the seats
Come on, Pocky. You're a numbers guy...you know better than that.
First of all, I buy everything on super sale. So, the whole system probably set me back around $3,500 at the most.
Let's say conservatively that it lasts me for five years.
Let's also say that someone in my house is using that system for an average of two hours each day, which is a fair estimate, because I tend to watch a movie almost every night before I go to bed..
That means that my entire home theater system, which brings me great personal fulfillment, is costing me less than a dollar per hour of use.
It's basically renting vs. buying. If I go to the theater, I am paying money to use that space for two hours to watch a movie...along with highly overpriced food options...and, I am never able to watch that movie again, unless I pay more money. Conversely, if I buy a system that I enjoy as much as, if not more than, the theater experience, that is mine to keep. I can use it as much as I want. I can watch movies over and over again, if I choose to. And, I can choose from reasonably priced snacks readily available in my kitchen downstairs.
I know, I know. I am sure your fancy pants system rocks. But in certain circumstances, going to the theater can be the superior experience. At its best, seeing a film that everyone is into can be a great communal experience to be shared. Something about the ritual still has some magic about it. Now, theater etiquette has definitely gone downhill in the last 15 years or so. That is why I am careful when I pick when and where I decide to go to the theater.
There is one theater here that I go to regularly, and it is the artsy fartsy theater here in town that serves dinner and drinks. Not many kids are ever there, so I am generally not annoyed by the patrons. (Children and teens are the source of my annoyance at theaters about 90% of the time).
Or, I will do the big event on opening night like "Dark Knight". That was fun because I had to get my tickets a week in advance, as did the other patrons at my showing. That means that the people at that showing were dedicated fans and really wanted to see the film, so they were well behaved. Plus, it was fun because all the people were jazzed to be there and there was a great buzz about the place. And you had the superfans out dressed in their costumes that, if nothing else, add additional entertainment value as far as people-watching goes. It was a good time that could not have been replicated sitting my fat ass down on my couch in my living room, no matter how fancy my TV may be.
I know, I know. I am sure your fancy pants system rocks. But in certain circumstances, going to the theater can be the superior experience. At its best, seeing a film that everyone is into can be a great communal experience to be shared. Something about the ritual still has some magic about it. Now, theater etiquette has definitely gone downhill in the last 15 years or so. That is why I am careful when I pick when and where I decide to go to the theater.
There is one theater here that I go to regularly, and it is the artsy fartsy theater here in town that serves dinner and drinks. Not many kids are ever there, so I am generally not annoyed by the patrons. (Children and teens are the source of my annoyance at theaters about 90% of the time).
Or, I will do the big event on opening night like "Dark Knight". That was fun because I had to get my tickets a week in advance, as did the other patrons at my showing. That means that the people at that showing were dedicated fans and really wanted to see the film, so they were well behaved. Plus, it was fun because all the people were jazzed to be there and there was a great buzz about the place. And you had the superfans out dressed in their costumes that, if nothing else, adds additional entertainment value as far as people-watching goes. It was a good time that could not have been replicated sitting my fat ass down on my couch in my living room, no matter how fancy my TV may be.
Your logic breaks down when yu say you watch a movie before bed anyway. Your alternative in that case is not going to the movie theater every night. Plus you are not factoring cost of capital
Alright, enough! We get it. Dez likes to be around people. I prefer to be at home, far away from the teeming masses. And, Pocky just likes to annoy people in order to keep the conversation going.
This is a silly debate anyway, because we all know that I do enjoy going to the theater from time to time. However, if I had the choice between watching a movie at a set time in a theater with a bunch of strangers, or watching the same movie whenever I wanted to at my house with friends (or alone), I would choose my house every time. In fact, if movies came out on disc at the same time they were released in theaters, I imagine it would be very rare for me to actually go out to the movies.
I cannot wait to see this movie. I don't care about spoilers - I am damn near spoiler-proof anyway. As a fan of The Killing Joke, which was brutal and unpleasant (and it makes me wonder if I can stand seeing that done to Barbara Gordon on-screen), I am pleased by the things I hear you (Dez) saying.
Seb, great to have you comment again. Haven't seen you around these parts in awhile.
'The Killing Joke' is quite brutal, and quite good. This movie does not follow that graphic novel's plot, so you will be spared seeing Barbara Gordon's murder. What I meant when I referred to 'The Killing Joke' was that this movie captures that novel's spirit in its interpretation of The Joker.
"And, Pocky just likes to annoy people in order to keep the conversation going."
You know me so well
By the way, I hadn't mentioned this, but I thought a few people on this site might appreciate it...
I actually paid for a good portion of my new home theater system with money that I had won a few weeks ago playing poker in an Indiana casion on my recent vacation.
Most of the packed theater that I saw this with laughed out loud when he said "you complete me." Just for the record. And I didn't see it in some tony neighborhood with snobby New Yorkers -- it was a megaplex with a very diverse crowd.
Surely, that line is meant to be funny, though. Not having seen the movie, I can't say that for sure. But, no writer could have expected it to be taken seriously. They had to be going for a laugh.
After all, he is "The Joker". Perhaps, he was just joking. Maybe, like all guys, he just enjoys sitting around with his friends and swapping movie lines back and forth.
I agree, I think they were actually going for a laugh.
I spoke too soon. It's not that I think they were going for a laugh -- the rest of the humor in the movie is pretty tone deaf -- but I don't think they were trying to be quite as "serious" as the rest of the final third of the movie. It was the Joker being playful, trying to get a rise out of Batman, not trying to make some profound statement. He does that again and again in other scenes.
Post a Comment