I didn't quite know what to expect when I entered the theater to see The Dark Knight last evening, I just knew it was going to be good.* I was absolutely blown away. This isn't the sort of film where you walk out saying "It was good for a comic book movie." It is a great movie, period, something that changes what a comic-based mythology can be with careful planning (even if the Joker's love of chaos seeps into the mix). Unlike so many other films there's not the sense of obligation to hardcore comic book fans that results in endless streams of in-jokes, cameos, and crossovers; much like it's predecessor The Dark Knight works from the source material and reinvents it in a new fashion. Yes, Heath Ledger's penultimate performance is fantastically terrifying, but as a whole the film grabs your attention and doesn't let it go. The only time I looked at my watch it was to wonder how the hell they were going to complete the story in the time that was left. (My fellow Sciblings apparently liked it, too; see the reactions of John, Evil Monkey, and Chad.)
(So far my predictions for this summer's crop of movies has been right. I loved Wall-E, Indy 4 was so-so, and The Dark Knight was fantastic. The only question now is what is going to fill the summer movie void between now and September?)
Not everyone is going to like it, of course, and that's to be expected. Although The Dark Knight is sure to be a hit it just isn't the kind of movie some people are interested in, and that's fine. What I find odd, however, are the reviews in which the critic is offended at the very concept of there being a solid "comic book movie." While many have praised the film for being dark and gritty, perhaps being the closest fictional representation of what these characters would be like in the real world, some critics have taken the same characteristics to be negative. Comic books are full of striking colors, somewhat silly storylines, and people running around in brightly-colored tights, right? The Dark Knight does not fit that mold and breaks from the stereotypical image of what a comic book should be, and perhaps that is what is so bothersome. The Dark Knight respects the work of comic book writers and illustrators as real art, not just kitsch that ends up filling boxes in the attic, and this is upsetting to the guardians of "real literature."
The Dark Knight is dangerous for another reason because it invades the territory of more "acceptable" film dramas, a comic adaptation that dares to have a solid story being anathema to some critics. Is it Shakespeare? No, of course not, but it is much more authentic than just about any other comic adaptation you care to name. Batman would probably consider most of the moral challenges faced by the recent film incarnation of Spider-Man a vacation compared to his dilemmas, every decision seeming to require some sacrifice or leading to unintended consequences. There's plenty of issues to consider and depths to plumb, but while I had the luxury of discussing the choices made after I left the theater the characters themselves had sparingly little time to make excruciatingly difficult decisions. This is what makes the film so compelling; our heroes don't always make the right choice or even know what choice to make, and the tension escalates as characters separate from each other and then unexpectedly converge in the final act.
The Dark Knight is not a perfect film, nor will it win a major award for best picture (the old guard of the film industry have to keep some genres out of the club, after all), but it is certainly one of the best films I have seen in a long time. It stands in sharp contrast to the overflow of silly, "let's blow stuff up and not think about the consequences" type of superhero films we have become accustomed to, something much more gritty and authentic. (I apologize if I have been somewhat vague in this post but this is a film where the less you know going in, the better.) The literati may sneer and be aghast at the film, but I say ignore their imagined self-importance and check out a truly exceptional piece of cinema.
- Log in to post comments
I am going to see this in just a few hours - looking forward to it!
I saw it last night because I got to the cinema too late to see Hellboy.
I took a 9-year old with me. Before we went we had a conversation about how Batman has changed since the comparatively light-hearted, campy TV show I loved so much as a child in the 1960s.
We watched all the trailers at home. What struck us about trailer #1 (on the quicktime site) was that it didn't show any of the movie. I was watching the progress bar below the applet. At over halfway through it, the trailer had comprised completely of some shafts of shattered light coming from some unknown dark object and the whole background was dark. Finally there's a bat symbol at the end. This prompted the question "why is it so dark?" hence the discussion of the changes Batman has gone through "since I was your age".
The Joker is the thing in Batman. Jack Nicholson and now Heath Ledger have transformed the Joker into an incredible character study. In the Dark Knight, the Joker has some truly meaningful things to say about human nature, the issue of trying to control life, and how comfortable people can get with all kinds of injustices as long as they are considered "part of the plan," and how the Joker is fascinated by what happens when the "official plan" for the public is derailed (the pursuit of which he obviously specializes in).
I was hoping it would not be too violent for a 9-year-old (there's is violence but not gratuitous blood and guts, and he handled it just fine) or contain cuss words (it doesn't).
It was kind of neat to share the evolving experience of Batman with a child. It was definitely part of my childhood, but it was a very different Batman in a very different time.
Next on the Agenda for me: Hellboy. I loved the first one.
Haven't seen it yet because I can't stand packed theaters, but I'm going to see it very soon. I can't wait.
This is precisely what bugged me about the vast majority of comics movies made up until, from what I can tell, the first X-Men film. And when you look at Hollywood superhero films that aren't based on existing properties (not counting The Incredibles), they pretty much all fall into this trap and come off as hokey and dumb. It's also annoying that Hollywood can't see (or couldn't -- I guess they're coming around lately) that this was all their fault for misinterpreting comics, rather than the fault of the people writing comics.
Granted, I hate the "darker, edgier" cliche and pretty much pretend that the 1990s didn't exist, comics-wise, but there's a happy medium of mature comics between the four-colour golden age stuff and the ridiculously juvenile 90s-antihero stuff. Batman Begins' success was to find the sweet spot of being serious without going over the top, so I'm glad to see what The Dark Knight continues that trend.
I found Batman Begins to be stylish and expensive but completely ludicrous; after I realized it wouldn't stop trying to beat me over the head with armchair psychology passed off as deep thematic wisdom, there was little I could do but laugh. Seeing Terminator 3 the same weekend kind of put it in perspective, though: "Oh, it just needed a script tune-up and a better leading lady. It's not a sin against storytelling."
Still, if comic-book movies are improving, then Sandman and Transmetropolitan might not be total disasters. . . .
Just curious - Does Heath Ledger have another movie waiting to come out, or did you mis-use "penultimate"?
"Heath Ledger's penultimate performance"
Karl: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/
Absolutely fantastic movie. I've watched it three times in IMAX (I have connections) and it amazes me how intense it is, even though the violence is commonly veiled with a creative camera angle or entirely outside the shot and like yogi-one said, there's no cussing. Very satisfying performances from every character and at 2.5 hours long I kept checking my watch, even at the 2-hour mark, hoping there would be more!
That was the best Batman movie ever!
Brian - I found it interesting, in a blog titled "Snobs" that you should include this line: "Is it Shakespeare? No, of course not".
That sounds rather snobbish to me, because in his time, Shakespeare was nothing more than the equivalent of a comic book writer, and he wasn't that great.
Yes, he had moments of greatness, but people seem so obsessively-compulsively devoted to singing praises of those parts of his writing that they forget about his plethora of bad puns, his (what would now be derisively termed) frat boy humor, his many paper-thin characters and plots, his many stereotypical characters, and the plain bad writing which haunted many of his plays. And this addresses nothing of his personal life in which he pretty much abdandoned his wife and children.
I think the greatest Shakesperian tragedy is that we in this day and age are scared-to-death of saying bad things about Shakespeare.
Karl - Heath Ledger's last movie, AFAIK is "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus". It's features Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law, although which, if any, one of them will fill whatever role Ledger was playing remains to be seen.
Mention Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Henry VI, Part One or the last act of Troilus and Cressida near a dry-as-dust Shakespearean, and see what you get. . . .
Blake - If it shakes pier, Ian's on it (say it quickly)
See, anyone can do it!