The Official "Dark Knight" Discussion -- SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
Okay. Saw this in theaters last night...mixed feelings about it. First -- and this is very trivial -- I liked the opening sequence of the bats filling the screen better in Batman Begins than how Nolan opened this one. There could have been a bit more "punch" in the opening theme/sequence as there was in the last film when the DC/Warner/Legendary Pictures logos first come onscreen; as I said, all trivial...
Now, let me get to what I didn't like: Katie Holmes not returning was a mistake; just took me out of the story. I didn't like the choice for Dent, either -- Tommy Lee Jones blew Eckhardt's performance out of the water I thought. And what was the deal with Dent's "Two Face" villian character not even being explored? He shoots a couple of people at the end and waves a gun around and the "Two Face" character we loved in Batman Forever only gets that amount of screen time? What about his long run in the comics? The character didn't even seem that frightening or authentic to me; the role was miscast in my opinion. After coming off of No Reservations, Aaron didn't seem like he was the right choice for Harvey Dent.
Another thing that bothered me through the run of the picture was my constant questioning of Chris Nolan's inconsistency of following the comic blueprint: and perhaps diehard Batman fans can clear this up for me; it just seemed like many of the origins weren't explored correctly or even thoroughly -- did Nolan take his own angle for this? Was Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's visions more accurate? Let's get to the whole Joker thing -- according to Burton's Joker (played by Jack Nicholson), the criminal known as "Jack Napier" working for Carl Grissom eventually gets thrown in acid by Batman himself and becomes the Joker...is THIS the way the story really went? Did Napier really kill Bruce's parents or was it Joe Chill as Nolan suggested in Batman Begins?
What I liked about it? The stronger suit Bale wears in this one looks fantastic, and the stunt work and fight sequences with the Jokers men were outstanding -- I never thought the late Heath Ledger would have been right for this role; after all, whoever played the Joker had big shoes to fill after Nicholson's off the wall performance. But Mr. Ledger pulled it off -- a darker, more sinister Joker is what's explored here. But it also brings up questions and more issues with authenticity: Why wasn't the Joker's origins explored or explained in this? We just know him as a bank robber that puts makeup on to hide some scars on his face -- but what about Tim Burton's angle of the Joker, once again...wasn't the Joker supposed to be dropped in a vat of acid so he "gets" those disfigurations and covers them up with white face makeup? According to Nolan's take of this character, the Joker has no ID, no fingerprints, no record...in Burton's 1989 Batman, it was known that he was definitely Jack Napier. I also didn't like the whole scene at the end where the Joker set up the two ferries leaving Gotham to explode based on whether or not the other boat was going to press the detonator; it just seemed like unnecessary fluff for Nolan to fill up two and a half hours.
Some other things were unnecessary, too: the whole connection with the Japanese business mogul laundering the money somehow to what was going on in Gotham; way too complicated. And I think that's where Nolan went wrong with this in general: the whole screenplay (of course, this isn't the director's fault) just seemed way too confused and tried to do what Spider Man 3 did -- cram way too much into one film; at some points I couldn't really follow what was going on and after a certain amount of time, I didn't really care anymore...I wanted to see what the essence of this film was actually about, and that was Batman chasing down the Joker, and inbetween there was just too much going on. The introduction of Harvey Dent becoming Two Face seemed unnecessary in this sequel and rushed to the point that his long comic run gets shortened to a half hour or so of screen time where some bad acting and horrible dialogue writing and delivery don't really expose Two Face for the psycho he was; like I said, I think Tommy Lee Jones nailed the performance in Batman Forever...
But overall, this was a real fun ride -- definitely going to pick this up when it arrives on Blu ray. There were just so many things that had holes through them and other things like Wayne Manor not being reconstructed yet, the untied "catching" of the Joker which is never explored after that, the loss of the Tumbler in exchange for the bat cycle, the whole Scarecrow thing (was he in the film? Was he not? The credits said it was Cillian Murphy playing him once again, but where -- that scene early on where Batman rounds up those thugs dressed up like Batman and Scarecrow in that van?) that it makes me question whether or not this one was better than Batman Begins. The biggest issue here though is which version is going according to the "Batman mystique"...was Joker an unidentfied madman with natural scars on his face or was he Jack Napier, dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman?
That brings up yet another question, too: What about the Two Face character? According to Schumacher's Batman Forever, Dent was the Gotham D.A. who had acid thrown at him from Boss Moroni in a courtroom and as Batman tried to save him, he was hit with the stuff hence disfiguring his face and making him turn against Batman and the police...according to Nolan's take on it, Dent was tied up in an empty factory warehouse where chemicals were tied to a bomb set to go off, as was Rachel, and as Batman dragged him out, fire caught onto the chemicals on Dent's face and burned him -- the Joker then visits Dent's hospital room and thus Dent begins going after people but for no real reason that's made clear...so, which version is "correct"? Are they just two separate visions?
I also have a problem with the Gordon character, as now he becomes the famous Commissioner Gordon in The Dark Knight; isn't Oldman's portrayal of this legendary character too young? Unless Nolan is telling a real "beginnings" story with both these films, as Alfred and Gordon are both much younger than what traditional Batman films and shows have portrayed...
In general, though, this was a cool summer flick and a definite satisfying long awaited sequel to Batman Begins...aside from authenticity and remaining true to the source material issues and a bit long in the tooth with regards to length, this is probably the must-see event for Summer 2008.
Discuss away!
|