Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

[Steve Rhodes]

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: Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com

***********************************************************************

Want reviews of new films via Email?
Just write Steve.Rhodes at InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the 
subject line.