Dark Knight review
Jul. 30th, 2008 02:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ishtar79*peeks in*
Hey all, remember me? I’m fairly certain tectonic plates have shifted since my last update, though I’ve been making an effort to at least read my flist from time to time.
I went to see Dark Knight with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ariadneelda last night.
I’m a bit on the fence about it. It certainly had its moments, and there’s no denying it was visually stunning, but I definitely felt there was something…lacking.
I love a good tension-filled Escalating Threat plot and stylized comic book fight sequence just as much as the next fangirl, but those tend to lose their impact without the stuff in-between, the quiet moments that give you insight into the characters, or even let you catch your breath. Batman Begins had those-in fact, the movie was an extended analysis of Bruce Wayne’s Many Issues, dressed up in a bat costume. This wasn’t the case with Dark Knight. Oh, certainly, Bruce is no closer to burying his demons in this one, but I just found it difficult to actually care about them. Possibly because much of the plot seem to follow the "danger-danger averted-Bruce takes off suit and snarks a bit with Albert-oh look, DANGER!" format.
Speaking of Albert, he was criminally underused. What’s the point of casting Michael Caine if you’re not going to put him to work? That also goes for Morgan Freeman (and can I just say, I was bitter about the lack of Albert/Lucius Old Men Slashiness in this one!) and Maggie “I can has agency?” Gyllenhaal (on the plus column, no Katie Holmes. On the minus, the Rachel character was so pointless and undefined, a mannequin could have easily replaced her with no one noticing). I was relieved that the Gary Oldman character made it through the film though.
In case you think this is an all-out negative review, I can say that one thing (mostly) compensated for the movies (not insignificant) flaws, and that is the perfection that was Heath Ledger’s Joker. I remember when the first Batman with Michael Keaton came out, with Jack Nicholson playing the part. Regardless of what one thinks of Nicholson’s career as a whole, it can’t be denied that the man can ham it up, and I’m so grateful that Heath didn’t go that route. The subtler performance was an unexpected touch (after all, it’s hard to go more over-the-top comic book villain than the Joker), but it brought to the character a level of malice and danger I felt was lacking in previous screen versions. That videotape, where he kills the fake!Batman? I got chills watching that, and I can’t remember the last time I actually got scared watching a comic book adaptation.
Like I said, this movie wasn’t my favourite, but after the full-blown Batman-Joker war started, after the arrest, I was hooked. The Joker’s elaborate mindfucks were nothing short of awesome, and combined with my ‘meh’ attitude about the Caped Crusader in this one, I was finding it hard to get particularly upset about all the ways he was getting OWNED, and rather gleeful at watching the Joker’s schemes fall into place. I did sympathize with Gary Oldman’s character though (I know said character had a name, but I spent much of film commenting toariadneelda “Well, this can’t be good for poor Gary Olman’s ulcer”, because it just sounds cooler than “Gordon”. Seriously, being a cop in Gotham must suck).
Speaking of the Joker’s schemes falling into place, I totally called Harvey’s villainous turn. Bruce’s mancrush on him alone should have been a clue-sheesh, no wonder Bruce has intimacy issues. All hisboyfriends male role models end up trying to kill him.
Mind you, for a movie that focused so much on Harvey’s descent into darkness, they were surprisingly tight-lipped about the Joker’s origins. I’m not sure whether it’s fitting to maintain the mystery surrounding a character that’s just into chaos for chaos’ sake, or if it’s just another sloppy example of character development, or lack thereof, on the script writers (“He’s a clown. A CRAZY CLOWN! Just go with it!”).
Overall an enjoyable experience, if a bit uneven. The ending didn’t feel nearly as iconic as I imagine the director thought it would and it left a few plot holes. Did Gordon’s wife agree to maintain the “Evil Batman” fiction? What about his kids? What about the crooked lady cop, who I believe survived, babbling about Twoface?
Still, I look forward to the DVD coming out, so I can rewatch my favorite scenes over and over, especially the Batman-Jokerslashfest confrontation at the station. Or any scene where you catch a glimpse of Christian Bale’s naked torso (another thing sadly lacking in this one, as opposed to the original. Filmmakers, take note-when in doubt, always go with shirtless Bale doing push-ups. Trust me on this.)
Hey all, remember me? I’m fairly certain tectonic plates have shifted since my last update, though I’ve been making an effort to at least read my flist from time to time.
I went to see Dark Knight with
ariadneelda last night.I’m a bit on the fence about it. It certainly had its moments, and there’s no denying it was visually stunning, but I definitely felt there was something…lacking.
I love a good tension-filled Escalating Threat plot and stylized comic book fight sequence just as much as the next fangirl, but those tend to lose their impact without the stuff in-between, the quiet moments that give you insight into the characters, or even let you catch your breath. Batman Begins had those-in fact, the movie was an extended analysis of Bruce Wayne’s Many Issues, dressed up in a bat costume. This wasn’t the case with Dark Knight. Oh, certainly, Bruce is no closer to burying his demons in this one, but I just found it difficult to actually care about them. Possibly because much of the plot seem to follow the "danger-danger averted-Bruce takes off suit and snarks a bit with Albert-oh look, DANGER!" format.
Speaking of Albert, he was criminally underused. What’s the point of casting Michael Caine if you’re not going to put him to work? That also goes for Morgan Freeman (and can I just say, I was bitter about the lack of Albert/Lucius Old Men Slashiness in this one!) and Maggie “I can has agency?” Gyllenhaal (on the plus column, no Katie Holmes. On the minus, the Rachel character was so pointless and undefined, a mannequin could have easily replaced her with no one noticing). I was relieved that the Gary Oldman character made it through the film though.
In case you think this is an all-out negative review, I can say that one thing (mostly) compensated for the movies (not insignificant) flaws, and that is the perfection that was Heath Ledger’s Joker. I remember when the first Batman with Michael Keaton came out, with Jack Nicholson playing the part. Regardless of what one thinks of Nicholson’s career as a whole, it can’t be denied that the man can ham it up, and I’m so grateful that Heath didn’t go that route. The subtler performance was an unexpected touch (after all, it’s hard to go more over-the-top comic book villain than the Joker), but it brought to the character a level of malice and danger I felt was lacking in previous screen versions. That videotape, where he kills the fake!Batman? I got chills watching that, and I can’t remember the last time I actually got scared watching a comic book adaptation.
Like I said, this movie wasn’t my favourite, but after the full-blown Batman-Joker war started, after the arrest, I was hooked. The Joker’s elaborate mindfucks were nothing short of awesome, and combined with my ‘meh’ attitude about the Caped Crusader in this one, I was finding it hard to get particularly upset about all the ways he was getting OWNED, and rather gleeful at watching the Joker’s schemes fall into place. I did sympathize with Gary Oldman’s character though (I know said character had a name, but I spent much of film commenting to
ariadneelda “Well, this can’t be good for poor Gary Olman’s ulcer”, because it just sounds cooler than “Gordon”. Seriously, being a cop in Gotham must suck).Speaking of the Joker’s schemes falling into place, I totally called Harvey’s villainous turn. Bruce’s mancrush on him alone should have been a clue-sheesh, no wonder Bruce has intimacy issues. All his
Mind you, for a movie that focused so much on Harvey’s descent into darkness, they were surprisingly tight-lipped about the Joker’s origins. I’m not sure whether it’s fitting to maintain the mystery surrounding a character that’s just into chaos for chaos’ sake, or if it’s just another sloppy example of character development, or lack thereof, on the script writers (“He’s a clown. A CRAZY CLOWN! Just go with it!”).
Overall an enjoyable experience, if a bit uneven. The ending didn’t feel nearly as iconic as I imagine the director thought it would and it left a few plot holes. Did Gordon’s wife agree to maintain the “Evil Batman” fiction? What about his kids? What about the crooked lady cop, who I believe survived, babbling about Twoface?
Still, I look forward to the DVD coming out, so I can rewatch my favorite scenes over and over, especially the Batman-Joker
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:33 pm (UTC)Wow, I was bummed out about that too! Once again the WB shows No Love.
I liked the movie, but I agree that it was uneven. I felt that Oldman's performance was the strongest of the lot, even over Ledger. Commissioner Gordon was a far more difficult role to pull off and make memorable, calling for a great deal more subtlety. Never mind that a younger, back-in-the-day Gary Oldman would have wiped the floor with Heath's performance! Thank fuck Gaz still has the mojo (ulcer or no ulcer)!!!
By no means am I suggesting that Ledger sucked – he did a fabulous job. But the very nature of the Joker made it clear that whoever played him would get the lion's share of the viewer's attention. Bale's willingness to step aside and work in the shadows of that is something I found rather impressive.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 12:33 pm (UTC)And I agree, the Joker was definitely the star of this one (what a swan song for Ledger). I'm still happy about the acting choices he made-too many would have gone the 'camp' route.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 12:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 05:06 pm (UTC)Have you seen Doctor Horrible yet? It is running free for at least this week, here:
http://blog.hulu.com/2008/7/29/dr-horrible
I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, frankly I wasn't a fan of Batman Begins... I think that Christian Bale is deadly dull and flat, and the director doesn't know how to cut a fast paced film (I fast forwarded through half of Batman Begins)...
I do plan to see Dark Knight on DVD if just for Heath Ledger's performance, and because I like Maggie Gyllenhaal, but I'm sorry to hear that they are still under using Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, both of whom can do so much dramatically and comedically that it is a terrible shame to not give them something to do!
You're right that nudity and pushups are a good thing... but I've recently gotten hooked on 'Burn Notice' where his upside down situps haunt me.... mmmmmm
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 12:37 pm (UTC)I preferred the first Batman...I think. It's been a while since I've seen it. Anyway, I think the Dark Knight is definitely worth checking out.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 03:50 pm (UTC)http://embers-log.livejournal.com/201241.html#cutid1
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 06:10 pm (UTC)I liked Ledger (although I don't think he should win an Oscar for this, his turn in BBM was better - he was wonderful as the Joker, but the character isn't particularly deep); Bale is as bangable as ever; it was cool to see the Scarecrow again (albeit pointless) and the Two-Face make-up was awesome. Oh, and I liked the prisoner dude who threw that doohickey overboard. But there was too much action (the part with the van and the motorbike seemed to last a century), and they should have saved Two-Face for the next movie. Oh, and I hate Gordon's kid. (LOL, ever sweet, ain't I?)
I actually think Kool Aid Katie was better than Gyllenhaal, which I never thought I'd say. But she had at least one reaction (when she's scared after the Scarecrow drugs her and Batman's driving them) which I found convincing, whereas Gyllenhaal was just a bundle of gestures and quirks.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 12:40 pm (UTC)The Scarecrow had maybe two seconds of screentime. Definitely pointless! And the Two-Face makeup was so effective, I was cringe all through those scenes.
The prisoner dude was kind of awesome.
I can't make any objective comments on Kool Aid Katie's acting. I can't watch her without seeing the couch-jumping midget.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 07:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 12:41 pm (UTC)