The Dark Knight Review
by Steve Rhodes (steve DOT rhodes AT internetreviews DOT com)July 18th, 2008
THE DARK KNIGHT
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 2008 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2
So, you're probably thinking, can THE DARK KNIGHT be nearly as good as its mind-blowing and riveting trailers? Not even close, I am very sorry to say. In one of the most disappointing films of the year, THE DARK KNIGHT is a pale shadow of its marvelous predecessor, BATMAN BEGINS, which I could watch over and over again.
While BATMAN BEGINS was consistently riveting, THE DARK KNIGHT is very much a mixed bag. Mixed with the flashes of absolute brilliance are long dead sections. This, the second of director Christopher Nolan's BATMANs, left me more often bored than entertained. It's a good thing that the long, slow stretches are periodically interrupted by some terrific moments, otherwise this is a BATMAN that could put you to sleep, as it almost did me a couple of times.
This frequently mean-spirited film -- do we really need child endangerment scenes? -- takes itself way too seriously. When it's willing to inject some humor, either in its dark scenes, as in the Joker's magic act in which he makes a pencil disappear into a guy's eye, or in its humorous gadgets, the movie becomes much more enjoyable.
The story starts when the Joker and his pals are busy robbing a mob owned bank. "Pals" is something of a misnomer, since the Joker is a psychopath who likes to kill everyone around him, even his co-conspirators. As everyone on the planet probably knows by now, the Joker this time is played by the tragically deceased Heath Ledger (Oscar nominee for his part in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN).
Although Christian Bale repeats his star turn as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, it will undoubtedly be Ledger's performance that everyone will be talking about. At first, I was a bit mesmerized by Ledger's acting here, but it quickly became obvious that it was a one-note performance, so it went from being interesting to becoming increasing tiresome. Ledger speaks in droll monotones, broken only occasionally by short bursts of creepy laughter. His best work in the picture is when he shuts up entirely and just stares hauntingly into the camera lens, like a circus clown who has been sent to jail.
There are some aspects that work with great regularity in THE DARK KNIGHT, but these have nothing to do with the characters themselves. Later discussing the film with my son, I realized how detached I had become from the storyline. None of the characters are ever worth caring about, so when some died or came back from the dead, I just didn't care in the least.
The images, the music and the sound consistently dazzle you. When the movie cranks up the volume and pulls back the camera, letting you watch Batman fly with majestic power over Gotham City, it's hard to keep chills from going up and down your spine, since it is so gorgeous and moving.
But, running a little over two and one half hours long, the movie becomes more of an endurance contest than a treat. (BATMAN BEGINS was long too, but it made much better use of the time, avoiding long slack sections.) At the ninety-minute mark, THE DARK KNIGHT comes up to a fine conclusion. It then spends another sixty minutes trying out several more possible endings.
What becomes obvious from the ending it finally selects is that everything that is wrong with THE DARK KNIGHT will probably be kept in its sequel, which looks like it will probably be even more pretentious, if that is possible, than THE DARK KNIGHT. Still, I believe that buried within THE DARK KNIGHT is a normal length movie that could have earned at least a star more from me. This shorter and more focused THE DARK KNIGHT would be well worth seeing.
Sure THE DARK KNIGHT will make a mint and the fanboys will undoubtedly go gaga over it, but, in my mind, it's a certain candidate for my list of this year's most overrated movies.
THE DARK KNIGHT runs a very long 2:32. It is rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of violence and some menace" and would be acceptable for teenagers.
My son Jeffrey, age 19, and a big BATMAN fan, gave it ***. He liked it quite a bit, but he had problems with it too, chief among these being the numerous long, self-indulgent monologues. He liked the way the film was darker, and he liked Ledger as the Joker, although he thinks Jack Nicholson might have been better. He loved the sound and the look of the picture. But he found it way too long and thought many scenes and several entire characters should have been eliminated. Overall, he has mixed feelings about the film, thinking sometimes it was absolutely amazing and other times it just wasn't. He said that it was definitely worth one star less than his rating for BATMAN BEGINS, which he thoroughly loved.
The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, July 18, 2008. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Century theaters and the Camera Cinemas.
Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com
Email: [email protected]
***********************************************************************
Want reviews of new films via Email?
Just write [email protected] and put "subscribe" in the subject line.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
