This article has been a long time coming, much like "The 'burbs" article I wrote. When "The Dark Knight" came out, a lot of hype surrounded it making it become one of the highest grossing movies of all time. When I saw it, it was in Vermont. Not the best of places to see it, but then again, we were there for a wedding. It was uncomfortable and cramped and packed. And I'm not talking about the theatre.
Let's start with this. Much like the last post that I have, I do believe this is a good movie, but this is by no means a "modern classic" or even one of the best of the decade. A lot of people think this because of how evil the Joker was and how it dealt with the complications of being a hero. Yeah, so what. Honestly, this is the type of movie that holds up to zero scrutiny. The whole movie is a magic act.
You don't really realize it until after you watch it three or four times. The first time you see it, you have this charge. Like, "Holy shit, Batman is awesome." Then the second time you watch it, it becomes a little odd. Like, "How did the Joker coordinate all this?" Then everything falls apart.
The movie is strung together by this half-assed logic. The Joker is a force to be reckoned with because of how he wants everything to turn into chaos. But, he's not omnipresent. He somehow is able to make thousands upon thousands of barrels of gasoline appear where he wants them to at will. The Joker is not that resourceful. For a person that believes in chaos, he must be able to plan things extremely well. The fundamental ideas of the Joker as a character are immediately contradictory. He believes in chaos so much that he doesn't allow it to happen. He has these elaborate plans and schemes but never improvises which is exactly why he loses.
There is too much going on in the movie. People complained about how "Spider-Man 3" had too much going on in it and then just a little over a year later, this movie comes out, does basically the same thing in a darker way and everyone loves it. Granted, "Spider-Man 3" is not a classic either, but no one claimed it to be one like everyone is this. "The Dark Knight" got all this acclaim for paying homage to "Heat" and other movies like it, but that's it's problem. The fact that it didn't play homage to Batman. It was too busy trying to be something it couldn't be.
"Let's do a realistic comic book movie that reminds people more of an R-rated movie from thirteen years ago instead of making it about the characters."
And Christian Bale. Holy shit. What happened to you, buddy? You're such a good actor and then all the sudden, you gotta scream like you have a frog in your throat? What does that accomplish? Bruce Wayne is trying to obscure his voice, but does he have to sound like a moron when he does it? Whether that be his acting choice or Christopher Nolan's directing choice, it still sucks.
Because there is so much going on in the movie, there are a lot of loose ends. Like, how the hell do Alfred and Bruce reconstruct the bullet before Gordon gets killed? What happens to the Chinese businessman when he's on top of the pile of money before they burn it? I'm assuming he gets burned, by why not show it? Because it's a PG-13 movie. Okay, that makes sense, but they make no mention of it and it's just stupid.
Oh and what the hell about when the Joker is talking to Harvey Dent about Rachel in the hospital does Dent not realize it's the Joker until he takes off his face mask that only covers the bottom half of his face?
This is why "The Dark Knight" is not as good as the hype that it brought along. Too many things don't add up. Too many loose ends are not tied up. You might say, "Well, that's how life is." Or, "The Joker is chaotic and so is the movie." Well, I say, "You're stupid." No one should or could really say with a straight face that this movie is one of the best of the past decade. No way. The movie might be okay in the long run, but it's just a lot of action sequences strung together with half-assed character development.
You ever been to a really shitty magician or had one around you and the only thing they can really do it the illusion of losing the top half of his thumb? That is what this movie is like. The only thing Nolan can really do is use IMAX cameras and do a lot of really good action scenes that he stole from another, older, better movie and make you think you're seeing a good movie. This is not the case.
Not only that, but where is the consistency in style between this movie and "Batman Begins"? Oh, that's right, there is none. "Batman Begins" was this dark, nightmarish vision of Gotham City. "The Dark Knight" looks like Chicago. At least in the Spider-Man movies, the city looked the same in all three.
What it comes down to is this, "The Dark Knight" is a good movie. It's the type of movie to show people on your new TV with surround sound, but it's only one step ahead of "Transformers". It looks really good, the directing is okay.
Oh.
Shit.
Forgot.
What the hell is it with over editing the movie? When Batman jumps out of the window to save Rachel from falling to her death, it cuts between three or four different shots for no reason. Why not just show someone fall in one shot or just two? Maybe that would actually feel like a legitimate fall from high up as opposed to just feeling like, no matter what, Batman will prevail.
Oh yeah, Maggie Gyllenhaal was brought on for what? To get killed? It makes no sense. I understand that Katie Holmes wanted more money to be Rachel in this one, but it makes no sense. If you're gonna kill off the character, just bring her in to have some consistency between the roles. But, here I am asking consistency from the guy that offered two versions of Gotham City in two different movies.
The point is, valid moviegoers and watchers will be able to tell the difference between hype and reality. I know I'm not the only one out there that doesn't worship the feet that Nolan walks on. He's a man with talent, but, like J.J. Abrams, it's now his job to prove to us that he's worth the hype. With "The Dark Knight" he has not done so. Let's just hope "Inception" is not just more hype packaged nicely.
Another thing, Heath Ledger does do a fine job as The Joker, but his version of The Joker, as well as Nolan's version of Batman, would not exist if it weren't for Frank Miller and Tim Burton. In order to appreciate what's in front of you, you need to realize where it's come from. And sometimes, as is with "The Dark Knight"'s case, it shows you that the movie is not that good.
No comments:
Post a Comment