The Dark Knight: A Dark Review

Last night I saw The Dark Night, the second installment in the Christian Bale series of Batman movies. This series of movies makes the criminals and heroes as realistic as possible, creating a dark and eerie atmosphere for them to work in. Instead of "Pow!" boxes, you might have moments where you jump out of your seat. These movies are more like the comics, rather than the live-action TV series, much less the other movies made. The Dark Night, whose fortunes know no limit at the box office, may be making a profit illegitimately, because: it just is not great.

The movie is good, mind you. Don't get me wrong here. I thought the story was mostly great, the characters believable and the audio and camerawork phenomenal. So why am I so serious?

For starters, the movie was too long. It tried to develop many characters: Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawson, Harvey Dent, The Joker, Lucius Fox, Gordon, and a mob lord. All in two and a half hours. Even the television show Lost, with it's insanely ridiculously large cast, focuses on about half those characters for a season. To try to give these characters a self-contained, fulfilling arc takes a long time. And while the movie handled it well, keeping the focus smaller and neater always works wonders. And that applies to villains, too. If the Joker is a menacing creature, show us him being a menacing creature, don't flank him with more villains. Show us just how evil he can be.

In relation to the paragraph above, the movie kind of pulled a Spider-Man 3. It tried to give us too many bad guys to feel scared about. When the movie started, we saw how devious and tricky the Joker could be. But then we were introduced to another section of the mob. (They were boring in Batman Begins and are still boring here.) Then we meet another villain, this guy being as big and menacing as the Joker himself. And that was kind of the problem. It took the spotlight off the real big villain and turned it onto this "newcomer," if only because of symbolism. The film took us many places, with many people. And with one or two less places and people, the film could have been excellent. It could have still been very emotionally satisfying, for both the characters and the audience.

Another complaint I have with the film is not the film's fault, but the hype surrounding the film. The film was not a non-stop roller coaster of intensity. There were many stops. You had time to walk around and get a soda between rides. There was also much talk about the late Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker as being "Oscar-worthy." While he personified a great character, and certainly took what he had and turned it into something very special, I don't know that I would find it to be an outstanding achievement in acting. Shoot, I feel like the city of Chicago added as much character and atmosphere to the movie as Ledger, if not more so. (The city was filmed beautifully.)

However, the movie was good. The movie tackled the question of vigilante heroes: good or bad? And it was not in a simplistic, Spider-Man kind of a "they're bad but he's cool so he can stay"-kind of a way. Even people who believed in Batman had to question if he deserved to be there or not. There were terrific character dynamics, especially the love triangle between Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawson. And there is one scene early on in the film where the Joker establishes himself as absolutely 100% terrifying. (When he first explains how he got his scars.) And, the first five minutes of the movie (bank robbery) is perhaps the best five minutes of cinema to happen in a long, long time.

I would probably give this movie an 8 out of 10. It's still good, and I'm glad I saw it. But it is not the type of movie I would necessarily see again, nor buy the DVD for.