DVD Review: The Dark Knight - Page 3

But, the worst ill is the whole predication of the film on the villainy of the Joker, when Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent-cum-Two-Face villain is far more realistic, well written, and well acted (at least in the comic book sense). No, I am not stating that Eckhart’s performance should have garnered an Oscar; far from it. But it’s miles better than Ledger’s performance. So, in a sign of the film franchise gods’ revenge, the script decision, by director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan, to kill off Dent, played by the still alive Eckhart, and keep alive the Joker, played by the still dead Ledger, is the only justice associated with this film.

Somewhere, somehow, you just know director Nolan had to slink off into a corner, bop his forehead V-8-style, and shriek, "Fuck!" Finally, this film simply isn’t even that good of an action film, because all the moves are telegraphed. I recall the feeling of not knowing what would happen next when I first saw Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Nothing like that is in this film. One is never unsure of what will happen, so there is zero suspense.

Nolan, whose career, after Memento, showed such promise, has clearly fallen into a creative rut, and is on the verge of descending into hackdom. He’s gone four straight films without an original idea (the two Batman films; The Prestige, a magician novel adaptation; and Insomnia, a remake of a Scandinavian film), and it shows. This film’s biggest marketing push, aside from the still dead Ledger, was that part of the film is shown in IMAX. Doesn’t help at all when there is no real story, and when the story does not, in even some minor way, acknowledge its own comic book absurdity.

As grating and puerile as I find much of Tim Burton’s film career, his two-film take on the Batman universe is a better one than Nolan’s two-film take. There is no dramatic arc in this film, only brief pauses between YouTube-ready action scenes, such as the logically absurd digression in Hong Kong, how everyone seems to survive multiple crashes and assaults, or how the Joker can get people to do his bidding with no financial nor personal enticements. Then we get to the faux Shakespearean ending that features a soliloquy, by Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), that is so sappy and mock-heroic that anyone not turned off by the film by then surely has to break out in guffaws.

Are there some great special effects? Yes. And there are some sterling compositions onscreen, wherein characters’ positions subliminally telegraph their relations to each other. Eckhart and Bale make their characters semi-believable, and Michael Caine does the most with his Alfred the Butler character. So The Dark Knight is not a bad nor terrible film. But it’s not a good one, much less a great one.

Continued on the next page Page 1Page 2 — Page 3 — Page 4

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for dan-schneider

Article Author: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider is the founder and webmaster of Cosmoetica: the best in poetica.
--
Film critic Roger Ebert calls Dan Schneider 'a considerable critic....'' that Dan Schneider (in regards to Ebert's writings) 'may well be correct in some aspects. …

Visit Dan Schneider's author pageDan Schneider's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - Deano

    Mar 25, 2009 at 12:57 am

    this is a very naive and unprofessional review

  • 2 - Dano

    Mar 25, 2009 at 1:29 am

    I'm getting so angry reading this review. it's so disrespectful to heath ledger-

    "in a sign of the film franchise gods’ revenge, the script decision, by director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan, to kill off Dent, played by the still alive Eckhart, and keep alive the Joker, played by the still dead Ledger, is the only justice associated with this film"

    that's really harsh mate.

    And besides, THE DARK KNIGHT was an amazing movie. stop trying to be an individual mate, just admit u love it!!

  • 3 - Jordan Richardson

    Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 am

    stop trying to be an individual mate

    Erm...

  • 4 - Deusx

    Mar 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Hey, Dan. I respect you as a book critic and as a poetry writer, but you need to stop reviewing movies and stick to what you're good at. You remind me of one of those guys who predetermines whether he will like a movie or not based on it's general appeal. Your non-objective attitude causes you to miss things, like when wrote about the 'agent of chaos' scene having no irony. He's wearing a woman's dress during the whole scene! Of course he's lying. You've done this with a lot of other popular movies too, like Blade Runner. It's not just that you call good movies bad, but when you hold up a piece of shit like Spiderman as being better, you just make an ass of yourself. You guffaw at Gordon's speech but not at 'this is my curse.'?? That's the only WTF I can think of. It never takes itself seriously, is that why Spiderman is better? Please. I guess that means Date Movie is funnier than Annie Hall.

  • 5 - Deusche Schneider

    Apr 25, 2009 at 12:38 am

    Dan Schneider,
    Please channel your [baseless] writing toward something you happen to have a clue about. My guess is you have no experience with acting, composing, screenwriting, OR directing. You also clearly lack any ability to detect well-done, artistic craft when it presents itself. I don't know how you believe Burton's interpretation touches more on realism than Nolan's. Every piece of The Dark Knight's plot is carefully devised in a way that exposes justice for the way it is, whereas in Burton's Batman, Nicholson waltzes around with stupid toys and contraptions, blowing shit up in public simply to show that he's "crazy." Jack Nicholson doesn't lend a commendable performance whatsoever as the Joker, he simply acts as himself. As for your homophobic issues, get over them. You're lame as fuck and have no business writing about any art form. Try sports.

  • 6 - Allyson Christy

    May 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    That is possibly the worst review I have ever read. Heath Ledger owned Jack Nicholson's Joker. Sure Jack did an amazing job but Heath just put more effort into the role. He completely devoted himself to his role and did the best Joker i have ever seen. And as for the homophobia and comparing it to Heath's role, that's just plain immature. Get better at reviewing movies douchebag.

  • 7 - Claire W

    Aug 04, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Finally an intelligent review about a vastly overrated movie. Thank you!

  • 8 - James

    Sep 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    [personal attack deleted] Jack's Joker character might have been better but his performance was not. jack played Jack in makeup. Ledger transformed himself into the character by drastically changing everything from voice to laugh to mannerisms to facial expressions. He was 100% immersed, couldn't believe it was the same guy from A knight's tale.

  • 9 - James

    Sep 18, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Keep in mind this is the same person who praised Spiderman 3 and at the same time bashed TDK, Brokeback and Crash(3 of the most well respected acclaimed films of the decade). He has also praised Topher Grace's Venom character(which was just grace as himself) and bashed Ledger as Joker(which was Ledger transforming himself into the character).

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Feb 13, 2012

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for January

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs