ObjectsInSpace
The Hammer Is My Penis
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,470
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Review time!
Firstly, I'm suprised this film got an M15+ rating. If I were one of the Powers That Be, I would have given it an MA15+. I would have serious reservations about anyone under the age of fifteen seeing this film. It's dark. It's violent. Heath Ledger is downright unsettling at the worst of times. And there's only one man an one film whom I can liken this to (you're going to have to hear me out on this one). Ironically, it's Christopher Nolan's predecessor, Joel Schumacher, and Batman and Robin.
That doesn't mean The Dark Knight is a bad film. Far from it. The reason I'm likening him to Schumacher is simple: because of the influencehe has had on the series. Batman and Robin is probably the worst film of the late twentieth century. It pretty much destoryed the franchise, but that's beside the point. What I'm getting at here is the influence Schumacher had on the film and the character, which was astronomical. Christopher Nolan is possessed of the self same quality: he's had an astronomical effect on the films.
Firstly, I'm going to have to give a moment to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. It's easy to stick him in as an afterthought because of Ledger's performance, but he deserves his own mention. I thought he was sublime. He oozes charisma as the new District Attorney. He reminded me of Hugh Laurie's Gregory House in that he goes for the million-to-one shots and comes out clean on the other side. You do want to believe in Harvey Dent, and I truly did like the way Two-Face came about. I was expecting the event that triggered his transformation to come about somewhere in the film, but not the way it happened and certainly not the way it was handled.
Of course, there's the obligatory mention of Heath Ledger that comes next. If you hadn't been told it was edger, you wouldn't know who the actor is; he completely immerses himself in the role and you can tell he's having fun. It's almost unfair to see him get all the good lines and some of the film's light-hearted moments (like a scene outside the hospital; his reaction is perfect). At first, I was unsettled by his character and just wated him to keep talking in every scene he was in because I knew that once he stopped, something bad - and probably brutal - was going to happen. I knew that was Nolan's intention, but I wasn't prepared for just how well he pulled it off. Kudos also go to Zimmer and Howard, the composers, who often build up the tension with a particular musical cue at the beginning of the film that you associate with the Joker and his violent acts, but later in the film they'll either play the sound and nothing happens on-screen (thus building up your expectations of what's about to happen, but it comes to an anti-climax), or just have the Joker do something evil without bothering with the sound cue (thus taking you by surprise). They've clearly studied their Hitchcock, because it truly is what we don'tsee that firghtens us the most.
Christian Bale, on the other hand, is of similar calibre. His performance is a lot more subtle than Leger's, but no less spectacular. True, I would have liked a few more scenes - or slightly longer ones - where he's Bruce Wayne as opposed to Batman, but it's moot point. Meanwhile, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are their usual selves, which is good, because a film like this needs some kind of stablity. Gary Oldman is also excellent because now he actually gets stuff to do (which he's never really had before in a Batfilm), while Kate Holmes' replacement Maggie Gyllenhaal is anything but forgettable, unlike her predecessor.
Plot-wise, it was great. I remember Joss Whedon - yes, him again - once saying that he saw the trailer to Batman Returns with the Penguin and Catwoman plotting to frame Batmn for crimes he didn't commit, and Whedon being disappointed because he knew there was no story. Instead of framing him, you're supposed to try and corrupt him; break him, take away what he loves, and drag him down to your level so that even if he wins, you don't lose because he's now no different to you. And that seems to be The Dark Knight's ethos; it's almost a superhero film some sixteen years in the making, and it's trying to ake up for lost time (which it does admirably). Yes, I think the comparisons to Heat, The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are completely justified. I also think that the finale really worked. You don't need an action set-piece to serve as your climax, especially in a character-driven film like this because it just feels like action for the sake of action. In fact, I really think the final scene of this film is a lot like the final scene of Batman Begins, setting up the next film. And while there's no clear indication of who the villain will be this time, it's certainly going to go in an interesting direction.
That said, there were a few minor flaws about it (and discussing them will bring about spoilers, but you were warned). Two, really. The first involved a scene where the Joker was taken into custody. I have no problems with the scene in and of itself, but merely one shot during his subsequent escape. A bomb is implanted in a man's stomach and in the fetmoseconds before the bomb actually becomes a fireball, you can see the man himself explode a little. It's too quick for you to actually see anything like body parts flying about, but it's not too quick for it not to register what happened. I just have to ask, was it really necessary? I've read reviews criticising it for its violent tendencies, but this is the only time I think it crosses the line into sadism: one half-seconf shot.
The second is the way Batman's supersonar device was shown. We actually see parts of the film fro his perspective when he uses the device, and I just found the sequence to be jarring and overly bright. I couldn't really follow what was happening with it. I understood the basics of it, but the specifics left me a little uncertain at times, and somehow, it just didn't look right. It's hardly a problem, though; certainly nothing like the "Officer, I am a Gotham Cty District Attorney; let me pass" (poor delivery) and "We're right atop the main hub of the city's water supply, and if that train gets here, the pressure will spike ..." (useless exposition) scenes in Batman Begins.
That doesn't mean The Dark Knight is a bad film. Far from it. The reason I'm likening him to Schumacher is simple: because of the influencehe has had on the series. Batman and Robin is probably the worst film of the late twentieth century. It pretty much destoryed the franchise, but that's beside the point. What I'm getting at here is the influence Schumacher had on the film and the character, which was astronomical. Christopher Nolan is possessed of the self same quality: he's had an astronomical effect on the films.
Firstly, I'm going to have to give a moment to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. It's easy to stick him in as an afterthought because of Ledger's performance, but he deserves his own mention. I thought he was sublime. He oozes charisma as the new District Attorney. He reminded me of Hugh Laurie's Gregory House in that he goes for the million-to-one shots and comes out clean on the other side. You do want to believe in Harvey Dent, and I truly did like the way Two-Face came about. I was expecting the event that triggered his transformation to come about somewhere in the film, but not the way it happened and certainly not the way it was handled.
Of course, there's the obligatory mention of Heath Ledger that comes next. If you hadn't been told it was edger, you wouldn't know who the actor is; he completely immerses himself in the role and you can tell he's having fun. It's almost unfair to see him get all the good lines and some of the film's light-hearted moments (like a scene outside the hospital; his reaction is perfect). At first, I was unsettled by his character and just wated him to keep talking in every scene he was in because I knew that once he stopped, something bad - and probably brutal - was going to happen. I knew that was Nolan's intention, but I wasn't prepared for just how well he pulled it off. Kudos also go to Zimmer and Howard, the composers, who often build up the tension with a particular musical cue at the beginning of the film that you associate with the Joker and his violent acts, but later in the film they'll either play the sound and nothing happens on-screen (thus building up your expectations of what's about to happen, but it comes to an anti-climax), or just have the Joker do something evil without bothering with the sound cue (thus taking you by surprise). They've clearly studied their Hitchcock, because it truly is what we don'tsee that firghtens us the most.
Christian Bale, on the other hand, is of similar calibre. His performance is a lot more subtle than Leger's, but no less spectacular. True, I would have liked a few more scenes - or slightly longer ones - where he's Bruce Wayne as opposed to Batman, but it's moot point. Meanwhile, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are their usual selves, which is good, because a film like this needs some kind of stablity. Gary Oldman is also excellent because now he actually gets stuff to do (which he's never really had before in a Batfilm), while Kate Holmes' replacement Maggie Gyllenhaal is anything but forgettable, unlike her predecessor.
Plot-wise, it was great. I remember Joss Whedon - yes, him again - once saying that he saw the trailer to Batman Returns with the Penguin and Catwoman plotting to frame Batmn for crimes he didn't commit, and Whedon being disappointed because he knew there was no story. Instead of framing him, you're supposed to try and corrupt him; break him, take away what he loves, and drag him down to your level so that even if he wins, you don't lose because he's now no different to you. And that seems to be The Dark Knight's ethos; it's almost a superhero film some sixteen years in the making, and it's trying to ake up for lost time (which it does admirably). Yes, I think the comparisons to Heat, The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are completely justified. I also think that the finale really worked. You don't need an action set-piece to serve as your climax, especially in a character-driven film like this because it just feels like action for the sake of action. In fact, I really think the final scene of this film is a lot like the final scene of Batman Begins, setting up the next film. And while there's no clear indication of who the villain will be this time, it's certainly going to go in an interesting direction.
That said, there were a few minor flaws about it (and discussing them will bring about spoilers, but you were warned). Two, really. The first involved a scene where the Joker was taken into custody. I have no problems with the scene in and of itself, but merely one shot during his subsequent escape. A bomb is implanted in a man's stomach and in the fetmoseconds before the bomb actually becomes a fireball, you can see the man himself explode a little. It's too quick for you to actually see anything like body parts flying about, but it's not too quick for it not to register what happened. I just have to ask, was it really necessary? I've read reviews criticising it for its violent tendencies, but this is the only time I think it crosses the line into sadism: one half-seconf shot.
The second is the way Batman's supersonar device was shown. We actually see parts of the film fro his perspective when he uses the device, and I just found the sequence to be jarring and overly bright. I couldn't really follow what was happening with it. I understood the basics of it, but the specifics left me a little uncertain at times, and somehow, it just didn't look right. It's hardly a problem, though; certainly nothing like the "Officer, I am a Gotham Cty District Attorney; let me pass" (poor delivery) and "We're right atop the main hub of the city's water supply, and if that train gets here, the pressure will spike ..." (useless exposition) scenes in Batman Begins.
