…and this is a 
A little preliminary heresy
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: July 24, 2008 8:30 AM, by PZ Myers
You know nothing is sacred around here. Well, I saw The Dark Knight last night and … didn't care for it. It was OK as an action movie, but the story was a mess. The plot wandered all over, and the movie seemed less interested in telling a story well than in throwing up moral ambiguity and ethical dilemmas which, instead of actually pursuing with any depth, it would resolve with a punch from Batman's fist or an explosion. As a plot mover, the Joker was less an agent of chaos and more like the TA for a freshman philosophy course, leading everyone through twisty little exercises in artificial circumstances that present the poor student with difficult choices. The answers in the movie were about the level of superficiality I'd expect from naive freshmen: he's not a hero, he's more than a hero, he's a guardian, or something. Unbelievably, the dialog actually spelled out such empty nonsense.
Although, it might make such courses much more interesting if, instead of writing papers, the students had to make their arguments in fistfights and pyrotechnics.
On the good side, though, the portrayal of the Joker by Heath Ledger has to be one of the best movie villains ever. That guy was scary — you wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley, and Ledger made you believe that you just might find someone like him in a dark alley somewhere. He set the screen on fire, and made the guy in the batman suit recede into irrelevance. If only he'd been given a screenplay that was less stagey pinball machine, and more focused.
Comments
Well, I read one review that suggested it was deliberately chaotic. Now I'll have to see it.
Posted by: David Lee | July 24, 2008 8:56 AM
I totally have to see that movie. But I have two choices: hitching a ride on three buses for about 2 hours to get to the theater that shows it in english, or just go see it in french
...which would suck. Dammit!
Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 9:02 AM
Dis'n a cracker and Batman in the same day. Now I am offended.
And to think I was looking forward to seeing the movie.
...someday...eventually...when it makes it to video...if the kids want to see it.
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | July 24, 2008 9:02 AM
That was about my take on it. There were some holes in the plot, it was dark and gritty and, in places, unbearably pretentious as it beat you over the head with its Serious Message. In short, it was a Batman comic, as a movie. On those terms, it was very good. Ledger did an excellent job; you saw the madness, and the anguish behind the madness, and the abyss beneath both.
But I don't see any point in pretending it was great art. It was much better done than most movies in the genre. Isn't that enough?
Posted by: KCProgramr | July 24, 2008 9:03 AM
This is pretty much the opinion I've heard of it all over the Interwebs Critic Matrix. Once I found out that the director wanted to shoot the movie in IMAX, I kinda figured the production team would be jumping the shark in other ways as well. What'd you think of Bale's performance?
Posted by: Julian | July 24, 2008 9:04 AM
Let's see how many threats roll in from Batman fans... Wait, you mean they understand the difference between fantasy and reality and accept that different people have different tastes? Blasphemy!
PS I liked it better than the first. It moved along faster, and there was no credibility-destroying microwave cannon or similar hokey sci-fi device.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 24, 2008 9:04 AM
SPOILER ALERT!
It was imperfect, no doubt. I thought it had two major flaws: 1) it stumbled about three quarters of the way through, having one pseudo-ending, whereupon the plot got loose and unfocused. It was about 45 minutes too long. 2) the so-called resolution of Batman as guardian thingie was particularly unsatisfying, not to mention contrived. Why not just blame the murders on the Joker?
Oh, and couldn't the director have told Bale to back-off on the raspy, spit-filled Batman voice. He way overdid it.
That being said, I thought over-all it succeeded, and I enjoyed it a great deal. Heath Ledger has not been over-rated in this movie. He was superb, and all in all I think it was a good movie.
Posted by: Ric | July 24, 2008 9:08 AM
Oh, man...you thought the crazy Catholics were bad? Just wait until the fanboys hear about this!
Both of Salon's critics had roughly the same opinion as you, and they ended up with hundreds of letters telling them how horrible they were (an average movie review usually generates ~5-20 letters).
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | July 24, 2008 9:11 AM
I agree. While I didn't think the movie itself deserved all the hubbub, Heath Ledger did an excellent job. I'm still glad I saw it in the theater though, and I'd recommend everyone do the same. Enjoyable overall.
Posted by: Eric | July 24, 2008 9:12 AM
Global aging: the demographic winter is coming.
Aging workforce in the USA.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash
Louis XIV : Après moi le déluge.
Also new website prowomanprolife(dot)org
Posted by: SM | July 24, 2008 9:12 AM
That's just terrible. Hand back your nerd credentials immediately or I'll declare a fat-war on you. Expect several hundred thousand Comic Book Guys at your door waving fire brands.
[Hint: It's a superhero movie. Dialogue is supposed to be cheesy. But the fact that none of the so-called good guy bad guy principles applied in this film took it to another level. And they resolved the Prisoner's Dilemma in a novel way, which makes the freshman philosophy OK.]
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | July 24, 2008 9:12 AM
I'm with PZ on this one. For a movie that got such good reviews and opening box office, it sure stank. I can't remember a movie I disliked so much since "Dune".
Mind you, I saw TDK at a drive-in, right after "Get Smart", which I found hilarious. The contrast may have hurt TDK. And the noisy environment marred some of the softer dialogue. To be sure, I was grateful for that, after a while, because the noise also hid some of the pretentiousness.
Once you think of the word "pretentious" in regard to this movie, your enjoyment is doomed. But it seems to have occurred independently to both PZ and to me; perhaps it's there for all to see...
Posted by: Rob | July 24, 2008 9:18 AM
I'm DOING one of those courses!
And, since it's in international relations and we're covering Kosovo...
EXPLOSIONS!
Plus, I called Milosevic a "complete and utter bastard" answering a question, and the lecturer later quoted me.
Posted by: wazza | July 24, 2008 9:18 AM
Damn. Six hours until I see Dark Knight. Since it is such an occasion, I'll dress up as Joker (makeup included).
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | July 24, 2008 9:18 AM
I had problems with The Joker.
While Heath Ledger is was a talented actor, not for one moment did I find his performance remotely scary. I saw more Heath and less Joker and Heath was not scary.
The Joker's character came across as very contrived. On the one hand, he says that he follows no plans, simply is an agent of chaos. And on the other hand, he micro-manages his plans and manipulates people in the most premeditated and scheming manner. This was most clear in the final scene where the Joker is hanging up side down and he tells Batman that he always had a masterplan, "an ace up his sleeve". C'mon, Mr. Agent of Chaos, how come you come off as so damn scheming?
Posted by: JoJo | July 24, 2008 9:19 AM
SM @ #10
(and I hope that comment is deleted as it is spam)
Your stupid website is actually implying that the world is in a crisis because of UNDER-POPULATION? You are out of your mind. Humans are overpopulating the earth, destroying it, starving to death, unable to find jobs, on and on and you have the audacity to say we should breed more?
Facepalm.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | July 24, 2008 9:20 AM
#6: and there was no credibility-destroying microwave cannon or similar hokey sci-fi device.
I respectfully disagree, re: the scanner network. But everyone has their own threshold. And as I said, it was a comic book movie, so I just went with it.
#11: they resolved the Prisoner's Dilemma in a novel way, which makes the freshman philosophy OK.
Technically it wasn't the Prisoner's Dilemma, since if no one pressed the button, the Joker would destroy both. It worked out as the classic PD because he was stopped from doing so. I thought it was more interesting how the passengers resolved it--who was most aware of the difference between murder and slaughter.
(trying to avoid tossing in any spoilers, hopefully I succeeded)
Posted by: KCProgramr | July 24, 2008 9:20 AM
I don't know about the cops that Dent killed, but Dent himself you can't blame on the Joker. The Joker had already been caught and Gordan had set up the perimeter around the building. Presented with a dead Harvey Dent, do you just say my family and Batman were all up there for no real reason and Dent tripped and fell to his death? I guess while you're at it you can go ahead and blame Batman for cop deaths too, otherwise you've got a live Joker on trial saying yep, I killed this one and this one, oh but not those two.
Posted by: barnetto | July 24, 2008 9:21 AM
Jojo, could it be that the Joker was lying to get people to under estimate him? That's what i got out of it.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:23 AM
Dear University of Minnesota, Morris,
An associate professor in your employ, PZ Meyers, has been posting hurtful, hate filled bigotry on his blog that can be reached from a link on his university faculty page. Dr. Meyers has stated with out any hint of humor or apology that the Christopher Nolan rendition of Batman: The Dark Knight was in fact, less than a perfect movie. His statement that the plot was not well constructed causes deep hurt to the community of Batman fans everywhere. His blatant comparison of The Joker to a TA in a freshmen philosophy class is so hate filled that I cannot think of worse bigotry in the history of this country!
One can assume from Meyer's lack of reasoned commentary on such matters that he has not read the many deconstructions of heroes and villains in the DC Universe, from the moral ambiguity of Batman's role in society, the self perpetuating hero-villain relationship between Batman and the Joker, or the marvelous graphic novel The Killing Joke (from which most of the characterization of the Joker in this movie was taken). For a man with such sparse knowledge of the DC literature, Meyers presumes to tell us that the depth of the moral and philosophical dilemmas of our great heroes are only superficial!
I hope that you take appropriate action against Dr. Meyers soon! I don't think that you want your university associated with such anti-cape bigotry and hatred.
Yours in Superman,
Humanistic Jones
Posted by: HumanisticJones | July 24, 2008 9:24 AM
I think it may be a mistake to go to a superhero movie and expect a good plot. In relation to other superhero movies, I think this was one of the best, but still not a great plot if we're looking at all movies.
But yes, Heath Ledger was insanely good as the Joker. (Pun intended.)
Posted by: Morse | July 24, 2008 9:25 AM
Heresy indeed! Ah, it's all good. I come here for the science and the crackers, and I go elsewhere for my passion for films.
I loved the movie, and plan on seeing it a second time as soon as possible.
Posted by: Fred Mounts | July 24, 2008 9:26 AM
oh, PZ (and several other commenters), can't you let those brains rest for once and enjoy a truly thrilling masterpiece? you are all too smart and analytical for your own good.
this movie is my god. i respectfully disagree with you (and i promise not to threaten your life).
perhaps you simply enjoy being in the minority? :-)
Posted by: Kristin | July 24, 2008 9:26 AM
Haven't seen Batman yet, but it's on the list.
Saw Wall-E yesterday with the kids, enjoyed it. That's what I go to movies for, cheap escapism & an occassional chuckle.
Any good laughs in Batman?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 24, 2008 9:28 AM
"Any good laughs in Batman?"
Quite a few actually.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:30 AM
@ #6
As pointed out in #17, I don't think that they were entirely clear on what sonar actually means... yes, the microwave machine in the first one was a little ridiculous (especially since it left people - predominantly full of water - miraculously unhurt), but this one had many smaller techno-gaffs rather than the one big one. Also, the fingerprint reconstruction was absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 24, 2008 9:30 AM
Sorry for not writing SPOILERS on my previous post in response to #7...
@Jojo
Yep, you clearly saw that Joker had all these plans. So when he says that he doesn't plan thats still perfectly in character because the character of the Joker can't be trusted; he's a liar. That should have come across previously when he tells two different stories about how he got his facial scars and certainly by the time he switched those addresses.
Posted by: barnetto | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM
Humanistic Jones, you are my new hero.
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 24, 2008 9:32 AM
They killed off the wrong villain to, oh sweet foresight!
I for the most part really liked the movie, but I do agree it was a little long. I did not like what they did with dent though. It reminded me of Spiderman 3, where you have this really amazing character that deserves their own movie and you introduce AND destroy them in a half hour. I felt they should have created the two face and left it as a lead in for the third movie. That would have also cut down the time.
Posted by: apy | July 24, 2008 9:33 AM
Thank you, PZ! You summed up precisely my reaction to the film. Since everyone else I know is raving about it...I feel validated.
Posted by: jp | July 24, 2008 9:33 AM
Humanistic Jones #20,
Thanks, that really made my day. That was very funny.
I truly enjoyed the movie. I don't know what PZ was taking that day. If you can't enjoy this superhero movie, then I think you are pretty much done with superhero movies. There simply has not been a better one. Perhaps you should rent The Hours or 28 dresses.
Posted by: techskeptic | July 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Finally! I'm not the only one!
PZ, I just invited you to my Facebook group on the subject.
Posted by: FishyFred | July 24, 2008 9:36 AM
I was disappointed that Scarecrow wasn't in the movie more. I think a teaming up of him and the Joker would've been great. Scarecrow would've had the know-how to make the Joker's laughing gas. Oh well.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM
The main message of the movie at the end is that government officials need to lie to the people for their own good. Great movie! Yup, we sure need more of that.
And before anyone says "it was just a movie of a comic book - the moral isn't important"" I say that they went out of their way to make the statement. If all they wanted was a fantasy/action movie they could have stuck to simple bad guys lose, good guys win.
Posted by: SteveL | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM
One wonders if more True Batman Fans (TM Patent Pending) will invoke their own version of the Courtier's reply (as has been done in beautiful satire with post #20) i.e. the Cartoonist's Reply.
"You haven't read enough comics, ergo you cannot comment on the holes in a movie-adaptation-of-a-comic's plot."
I think at the very least PZ should get some emails threatening him with having his brains beaten in with a rolled up copy of the issue of SUperman which introduces Red Kryptonite. Followed of course by lots of emails and posts decrying PZ for not criticising the recent Hulk movie ('cos we all know Hulk movie fans are fanatics who kill people).
Most of all however, I look forward to the endless concern trolling of people claiming to realise that Batman is fiction but who cry that criticism of the plot of Batman is bigotry. And of course that desecreting a free flyer from a Batman convention (that someone has obtained for PZ) is tantamount to his inciting theft and then killing black people/Jews/women/whatever suitably hyperbolic analogy is useful at the time.
May there be many comments!
Louis
Posted by: Louis | July 24, 2008 9:40 AM
I wonder whether dissing Batman will cause a bigger wave than crackergate ...
Now that you're done with the holy wafer, do you want us to send you pencils to show us tricks with? ;)
Posted by: Gerhard | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Oh man. Here goes. Justice League's gonna issue a press release for sure.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM
I dunno, I felt pretty gripped by the whole "pretentious" freshman philosophy aspect. All of a sudden, these "hypothetical" cases become real -- at least in context of the movie. It's like playing poker for chips versus playing poker for chips when the chips have monetary value. The game really starts to change.
Then again, I've probably watched too many superhero movies to even pick up on such flaws.
Posted by: Ollie | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Thanks. No really. I'm going to see it tomorrow, and have heard only good things so far. In my experience that bodes really badly for my enjoyment of the film. IMHO, you need low expectations to be really properly impressed.
Posted by: Confuseddave | July 24, 2008 9:44 AM
barnetto @18:
I see what you mean, but I don't buy it. The Joker is a known liar. Why should he be believed. Gordon can just deny it and blame him, and there you go. Or they could just obscure and stonewall the murders in general. After all, the Bush administration had great success with these tactics.
Posted by: Ric | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Sounds like you went to see a SuperHero movie and expected to see something else.
If you wanted Hamlet, you should have gone to a theater.
Posted by: RedMan | July 24, 2008 9:47 AM
"you need low expectations to be really properly impressed."
Maybe that's why i loved it so much. My expectations were pretty low. Before this Batman Begins was the best Batman movie and face it, it was pretty boring. I didn't expect much more out of The Dark Knight but was very pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:48 AM
I've heard similar complaints about the plot wandering and the story going nowhere. I have to say, that's actually one of the things I loved about the film (although I of course would have worded my case differently).
There's a lot to be said for the three-act narrative form, but said structure has ruined many a film for me. It's never very difficult to tell the direction in which most films are headed as a result.
With The Dark Knight, I'll admit I didn't always know where it was going. I found that quite refreshing.
Posted by: Optimus Primate | July 24, 2008 9:49 AM
I liked the film, but there *was* something off with the whole shebang. One thing that bothered me that I haven't seen mentioned is Batman's complete disregard for property. There were a lot of places where he destroys cars and parts of buildings when he's miles away from the villains and merely in pursuit mode.
I still think the best Batmans were done by the Warner's animated unit. They put together a tight, 30 minute superhero story every week. Kevin Conroy did the same voice for Batman as he did for Bruce Wayne. It's like Clark Kent and his glasses fooling everyone. You just go with it.
They recently went anime with the whole thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Gotham_Knight
I thought Christian Bale would be a good choice long before he actually got the part. I think it was after Equilibrium came out and there was talk of restarting the Batman films. The key to casting a superhero is this: you cast the *alter ego* role, not the superhero. You cast Bruce Wayne, not Batman.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 24, 2008 9:49 AM
Yes, but Heath Ledger is in hell with George Carlin...according to reputable sources of undisputed veracity.
Posted by: TSC | July 24, 2008 9:51 AM
Oh! speaking of that anime Batman has anyone seen it yet? I'm very curious. There are so many ways to interpret the Batman character that i think having 6 short stories would be a great way to show a bunch of them. Some emphasizing his technology and gadgets, some emphasizing the darker sides.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:53 AM
Anyone else pick up on the subtle hint about the next movie's antagonist?
"Will it work against dogs?"
"Maybe large cats."
At least, that's how I parsed it.
Posted by: Ranson | July 24, 2008 9:55 AM
Humanistic Jokes: It's "Myers".
Posted by: TSC | July 24, 2008 9:56 AM
Don't forget to mention that all people who were against Batman were some of the most evil people in the world!
Hitler killed millions, because he hated Batman!
Mao and Stalin were anti-Batman as well, as was Pol Pot.
And hey, how about the Joker! Mass murderer and stuff.
Seriously, anyone who is against Batman, is amoral.
Posted by: Arno | July 24, 2008 9:57 AM
I saw the movie last night as well. I liked it, with reservations. It did get a bit hard to suspend disbelief a few times. For instance, exactly how did the Joker manage to rig Gotham Hospital to explode with nobody being the wiser? Particularly in view of his stated predilection for standard explosives? I mean, it takes quite a bit of explosives, not to mention effort in placing them, to cause a large building to explode like that. Wouldn't somebody have noticed the preparations?
And that's just one example.
But still, it was a fun, fast paced action flick. There is much to like about it on that level.
Posted by: BruceH | July 24, 2008 9:58 AM
"Humanistic Jokes: It's "Myers"."
That's part of the joke...i think
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 9:58 AM
***SPOILERS***
On the fingerprint-off-the-bullet scene: what was the point? It seemed like quite the 24-style red herring... somehow it seemed to lead Batman to the apartment building above the funeral, but I didn't quite get how it got him there. The tenant of that apartment was a Joker crony? And they'd used the apartment to tie up (and, oddly/ uncharacteristcally, not kill) the police officers?
Plus it really annoyed me that after Batman rescued the guest falling out of the penthouse party, the Joker side of the story was left hanging. Weren't they looking for Harvey Dent? And wasn't he cleverly concealed in the bedroom or something?
Note that the movie didn't make it 100% clear that Two-Face was gone. He certainly wasn't as conclusively dead as other characters who turned out to be, um, not dead.
I enjoyed the double boat scene, because the movie had already been dark enough that you genuinely weren't sure which way it would go. OK, the big burly prisoner was obvious, but I wasn't too sure about the other side.
I did thoroughly enjoy it, except for wishing that we still had intermissions in long movies. Stupid bladder.
Posted by: lostinasia | July 24, 2008 10:00 AM
<JOKE>
Oh no you did not! How DARE you criticize Batman movies! You are a evil, evil man. Being a godless heathen is one thing... being mean to a cracker is another thing... but saying a batman movie isn't the most awesome thing you have ever seen is going TOO far, PZ!
I will now have to report you to Frank Miller and we will both come over there and do unspeakable things to you... I can't tell you what, because they are UNSPEAKABLE!
</JOKE>
Posted by: Tom | July 24, 2008 10:01 AM
**SPOILER**
Was anyone else really glad to see the death of that Batmobile? I hated that thing. I thought it looked cool and all, but for a guy that focuses so much on stealth it just wasn't fitting.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 10:03 AM
I'll go see any batman flick as long as there's no nipples on the rubber suit. I'm a sucker for good Art Direction and Photography.
I loved the Tumbler!
Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2008 10:04 AM
@ #48 and #51
Yes, the chronic misspelling of his name is part of the joke. A minor Poe's Law scenario I think.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | July 24, 2008 10:04 AM
I guess I pretty much agree with your stance on the movie, however I came out of the theatre having really enjoyed the movie - I think it was so obvious early on that this was the Joker's movie. He really stole the screen, and I pretty much tuned any of the other crap out and was just wowed by Heath Ledger's performance. I'm sure without such a strong character as the Joker in this movie I would have felt it was crap.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 24, 2008 10:07 AM
I used to think you were perfect, PZ, but now you've gone and shown your true colors. Everything you said has been a lie and I refuse to read another post on this blog.
The Dark Knight was the second coming for we geeks and you've blasphemed all over it.
In all seriousness, WTF, it was an amazing movie. You've seen other comic book movies right? This is like Shakespeare compared to them.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 24, 2008 10:08 AM
RE: Joker and explosive planting
Maybe he got the experiences placing shaped horizontal thermite charges for the 9/11 false-flag operation?
Posted by: Ranson | July 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Not seen the film yet, but isn't it funny how the Joker always manages to rescue the film? Jack Nicholson's Joker in the first Michael Keaton Batman was also the highlight of the film!
Posted by: Gareth | July 24, 2008 10:09 AM
Does anyone, for a second, believe the boat scene would end up like it did? 30 million cell phones all monitoring the city with fancy sonar and real time voice recognition are more realistic then the boat scene.
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | July 24, 2008 10:10 AM
Ack. My last post there should have a "[/nutjob]" at the end. I put it in real html, and the system ate it. D'oh.
Posted by: Ranson | July 24, 2008 10:11 AM
It at my sarcasm tags too.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 24, 2008 10:16 AM
Haha - PZ, are there any movies you DO like? No wonder people think atheists are grumpy and mean. =P
Posted by: Dan B. | July 24, 2008 10:17 AM
The movie was horrible and interminable. No character development at all. Christian Bale is out of the costume for a total of 10 minutes, so his talent is wasted. Save your money and time.
Posted by: Mango | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Peezy!
I totally agree with you. Great as an action movie, not as a Batman movie. I don't like Christian Bale as Batman or Bruce Wayne, and, while I did like the character that Heath Ledger played, it wasn't the Joker, it was just some crazy guy.
Plus, I kept waiting for something awesome to happen, and it never did.
Posted by: Big City | July 24, 2008 10:23 AM
"No character development at all."
That's like complaining about there not being character development in Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 10:25 AM
They smushed a Lamborghini! I mean, I don't go into movies expecting much or I'll be disappointed. I enjoyed it even though it was a bit long and part with the flipping semi was fun. But really. A Lamborghini? It's like when Bond's Aston Martin got sliced in half. I think I died a little inside. At least my local theater lets DePauw students in free on weekdays.
Posted by: Vanessa | July 24, 2008 10:26 AM
Brian, a 2.5 hour movie not a 4 minute cartoon.
Posted by: Mango | July 24, 2008 10:28 AM
Good movie, not great though. The sonar and the fingerprint thing were totally groan-worthy. The bat-motorcycle thing coming out of the tumbler was pretty ridiculous too. These were all more ridiculous to me than the microwave emitter from begins.
I still like the overall mood of the thing. They captured the sense of complete chaos pretty well - how everything was falling apart completely because of the joker and they were always one step behind. The only problem was that the conclusion was a little bit of a let-down in regards to this...it was just too quick for what should have been a more epic showdown since the entire movie was building the Joker up as such an epic villain and such a complete contrast to batman. The joker was so completely prepared for everything batman had to throw at him - and then in the final scene, it seemed like he just wasn't...it's not like batman somehow really outsmarted him. Same with two-face - batman just tackles him.
Heath was amazing and completely unrecognizable - I liked every scene of his except for the one where he first talks to the mob guys. Definitely a great performance.
I normally actually like Maggie Gyllenhal but didn't like her in this. Katie holmes was actually better in my opinion.
Bale was just kind of...there. There weren't many scenes of how he has any sort of inner conflict, and those inner conflicts he does have are kind of disjointed and mostly unresolved. Bale did a good job but didn't have many acting scenes to shine with. I agree with everyone who said the raspy voice was overkill sometimes.
I like how this is almost a complete contrast to the spiderman movies - which seem so completely "emo" in comparison since they spend so much time on introspection, especially the third one which obviously was terrible in this regard. This film and batman begins were much more about external conflicts.
Posted by: Chris Nowak | July 24, 2008 10:30 AM
#66 Big City
I can take or leave Bale as BatBruce, but Ledger was as true to the dark comic Joker as you can get. He's no Ceaser Romero or Jack Nicholson, but I wouldn't want him to be.
Posted by: Josh West | July 24, 2008 10:31 AM
Oh come on, people. It is a quality movie. Well made and great acting. I really didn't expect it to turn out so well. As to the claim that it wasn't profound enough, that's just rubbish. If I wanted Bergman's "The Seventh Seal," I would have watched that. For a blockbuster movie made from comic books, it is amazingly coherent and just dark enough to keep it from being boring. And did someone back there say that there was no character development? What movie were you watching?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM
And that's irrelevant. The point is no one watches it expecting there to be any. Pick up a Batman comic and do you think you'll see pages and pages of Bruce Wayne? That works for some characters, but this isn't one of them. That's why the last movie was so dull.
So you can complain that there was no character development. Just like i could complain that there were no pie fights.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 10:34 AM
Brian, we like what we like. I like to have characters who interest me, and *developing* them is key to that.
Posted by: Mango | July 24, 2008 10:37 AM
Well, I certainly agree with you...mostly, at least. I enjoyed the movie. I kept my attention. However, the plot was pretty shitty and had too much going on...the dialogue sucked, Batman looked like a pansy (and this coming from a gay man!), and the character of The Joker didn't make much sense.
But, the movie was still entertaining. It'll make millions, too.
Posted by: Chris (@ Fabulously in the City) | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM
Only 2 complaints from me:
1) Using Michael Caine to explain every single moral conflict is a little disrespectful to the audience, as if we're not smart enough to figure out a few things for ourselves.
2) The voice of Batman....here's a nice parody illustrating the point.
Overall, I loved the movie.
Posted by: The skepTick | July 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Maybe PZ could dis' a cracker, Batman, and Scott Adams/Dilbert all in one post. That would bring the Science Blogs servers to their knees.
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM
PZ's complaints about this movie sound rather like mine about Batman Begins.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Although, it might make such courses much more interesting if, instead of writing papers, the students had to make their arguments in fistfights and pyrotechnics.
Now that's a philosophy class worth taking! Then again, I have this weird love/hate relationship with the subject.
Posted by: Felicia | July 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Okay, to the character development people, batman/Bruce is not *supposed* to change, his character development was done in the first movie, in which he became batman. Once he is batman, he is meant to be the embodiment of stability, reliability, and constancy. Gotham may fall, but batman never will. That is the point of his character. But you can't honestly say that the characters surrounding him do not "develop." Just look at Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent.
To the plot and dialog people, plot was the way it was because of the story it was telling. It was about the downfall of a city and one man's fight against it (and the Joker as the most badass villain ever). I don't think there could be much more improvements to the plot. The dialog consisted of a lot of one-liners, but that's because the average American has a short attention span. Some one-liners did truly suck, but you can't denounce the entire movie because of a few lines.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 24, 2008 11:02 AM
If my son wanted to see a Batman movie on his birthday, and expressed such a wish to me, I would give a him a moderately intense beating and send him to bed without any supper.
But you took your's yourself? Some parent you are! Watching movies is one step from conversion experience. Maybe two. Anyway, you'll be sorry. No good can come of watching movies.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | July 24, 2008 11:08 AM
If the philosophy of this movie set PZ on edge, I can't wait to see his review of Watchmen.
Posted by: Steve | July 24, 2008 11:12 AM
Damn you GOYERRRRRR!
Posted by: rob | July 24, 2008 11:14 AM
I would normally agree with your review on lack of story...or rather a chaotic story line. But, hey...Batman isn't supposed to be deep and philosophical. It's BATMAN! :)
I absolutely LOVED the movie because I wasn't expecting anything more than what it was. Yes, Ledger's performance was awesome and blew out all of the past Joker's out of the water! Yep, Ledger was scary and convincing!
Sigh, I hate that that will be the one and only Batman he will grace. :( He was meant for that role.
Anyways, I loved the movie and the soundtrack is wonderful too.
Posted by: Goldfishflakes | July 24, 2008 11:23 AM
In re: Bale's "raspy" Batman voice.
Ironically, that was a move meant to enhance credibility. His suit includes a voice distorter. After all, if these folks know Bruce Wayne, when they hear his normal, un-distorted voice, they would say "That you, Bruce?" and the jig would be up.
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2008 11:28 AM
Since when did killing somebody in one movie prevent them from appearing in a sequel?
Posted by: Blondin | July 24, 2008 11:31 AM
As a Chicago student and stuck in the city over the summer, I had difficulty detaching the scenery as places I knew. Hey, he's under the El, wow they made it longer... It made the whole rush to leave Gotham a little less anxious. So what, they are blocking the bridges across the river. Where were they going to go, the South Side? And the boat scene against Navy Pier caused myself and a couple of friends to giggle uncontrollably.
As a movie, I enjoyed the action and I was happy there was a ton of it (the truck scene anyone?). I found Bale's performance lack luster, the Bat suit appeared swollen, and the role of Two-Face too brief.
As a huge Tim Burton fan, I tell myself and others that the new Batmans cannot be compared to the original two by Burton, as they are simply to different of a vision. However, watching this, I did find myself wishing for the Gothic, mysterious Batman over this modern version. Suppose I'm too much of a romantic.
Posted by: Nerdette | July 24, 2008 11:31 AM
PZ, how could you be scared by the Joker? You both share a similar philosophy. He would have applauded your recent actions.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 24, 2008 11:37 AM
I respectfully disagree, PZ.
While I do see where you're coming from and believe your stance has merit (I too would love to see philosophy classes resolved in fisticuffs and explosions), I felt The Dark Knight was an amazing thrill ride and followed a typical Joker plan to the letter.
Also, I loved seeing an incredibly good representation of Two Face.
Posted by: Tim Drake | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Fr. J
Troll elsewhere.
Posted by: spurge | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM
I forgot to add.
I liked the movie allot and I am not easy to please.
It was a bit long but I am not sure what they could have cut.
Posted by: spurge | July 24, 2008 11:52 AM
Disliking Batman, Blasphemy. Nah, your right, the movie did have a few plot holes. I didn't understand how