Untitled Document

Every once in a while a film comes along that performs so well at the box office it almost defies explanation. 11 years ago Titanic (not as good as the fans say, not as bad as the naysayers protest) became something of a phenomenon and grossed almost $2 billion worldwide. Nothing has since come close, and when all is said and done it is unlikely that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight will get anywhere near it either, but it has started like bullet, smashing records with the ease of defeating comic book henchmen. Biggest opening day in history. Biggest opening weekend of all time. Fastest film to $200, then $300. Bif, wham, kapow. This is something of a phenomenon in itself - as we speak it currently occupies the number one slot on the IMDb, unseating The Godfather as the highest ranked film. Critics have also been falling over themselves to praise it, with the few contrarians receiving abuse from ardent fans. The question therefore remains, is it any good?

Nolan's second entry in an assumed trilogy sees Bale reprises his role as the leather-clad nocturnal vigilante. The Dark Knight's batman is one wanting to hand over the role of protector to someone who the public can know and trust - someone that isn't forced to hide bhind a mask. That man is DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), a white knight who will supposedly keep the scum off the streets of Gotham city. Complications arise in the form of the Joker who promises the criminal underworld that he can bring Batman's head on a plate so, before Batman can hand over the reigns to Dent, he must first defeat the Joker.

Nolan's film opens with a Joker orchestrated heist on a bank with whom the mob deposit their money. It's slick, witty and nicely directed, and you know immediately you're in for a treat if the film can sustain this level of energy for its duration. Much of the success in these films relies on the execution of the action scenes, and Nolan handles all of them with aplomb, even exercising a little restraint with the quick-cut editing that almost seems obligatory these days. One criticism may be that too much of the close combat is filmed in close up, so you don't really get to see what's going on. We get a better handle on the more fanciful action, such as the bat car/bat pod sequence in which Batman protects Dent as he is escorted in an armoured car whilst the Joker tries to blow him up with bazookas fired from a moving truck. It's a gripping sequence and one of the highlights of the film.

There are problems however, whether the fanboys will admit it or not. Christian Bale is a very talented actor, but I'll be damned if his performance in this is anything better than adequate. He is fine as Bruce Wayne, but as Batman, his delivery is just ludicrous. I honestly could not understand some of his dialogue at times and his voice is reminiscent of Patty and Selma from The Simpsons (thanks to someone on a film message board for that comparison!)

The plot is also way too convoluted. I've made it sound pretty simple above, but the Nolan brothers who wrote the screenplay, actually don't keep it quite that straightforward and add a few layers. First there's a needless Asian subplot that sees Batman fly to Hong Kong to capture an accountant working for Gotham's crime syndicate. Then there's an unconvincing love triangle between Dent, Batman/Wayne and Rachel Dawes. In truth there's way too much going on in one film - even one that has been bloated to 152 minutes. A cleaner narrative would have been far preferable. The Dawes character is a waste of space, it doesn't matter whether Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal is playing her. Dent too possibly would have been better as the focus of his own film. Dent and Eckhart are very strong as character and actor respectively, but are slightly undermined by the fact that you are yearning for more screentime with the one truly exceptional thing in the whole film, and that's the Joker.

Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance. He has been tipped for a posthumous Oscar already, people paying tribute and comparing his performance with the greatest screen villains in cinema history, and the reality is that he deserves every last word of praise that's been showered upon him. Ledger's Joker is unique and originless - there's no backstory other than there contradictory tales he tells his victims before he slices them up. We learn only that he is more interested in exposing the hypocrisy and ugliness of mankind than with beating Batman to a pulp. He is permanently unhinged, even psychotic. His face is full of nervous tics, his voice rasping and strained. He licks his scarred lips like a salamander feeding on flies. Ledger inhabits the character so completely, everything he does is perfectly judged. It can be the smallest of things - the way he combs his hair back with the palms of his hands for instance - but it so brilliantly renders a screen villain unlike anything we have seen before. He is captivating - every second on screen is enthralling. In fact the film feels flat when he's not in it. It says a lot that the best scene in the film has nothing to do with either Bruce Wayne or Batman. It is between the Joker and Dent in a hospital bed. Two excellent actors at the top of their game facing off. As the Joker leaves, his mannered walk as brilliant as every other tic and affectation, the Joker grins, dressed in a nurses uniform, whilst the hospital is blown up in the background. It is iconic. But therein lies the problem with The Dark Knight. There's so much to enjoy about but batman is just about the least interesting thing in it.

Ledger's premature death is an incalculable tragedy. His performance in this, and in 2005's Brokeback Mountain confirm what an unbelievable talent he was. He will be sorely missed. Small comfort though in the fact that before he departed he created a character so brilliant, so memorable, that it will be etched in the minds of anyone to have seen this for many years to come.

MATT:

I finally made it. Walking into the cinema, I had that awful sinking feeling of a film over hyped and over loved that would end up being a disappointment. It has been impossible to avoid the hype, not least over Heath Ledger's final performance (said by all to be stunning, even by those who did not love the film), and my film thermometer has been rising. So, was this worth the wait?

I have tried to avoid all reviews (including my colleague's) so my apologies if I'm repeating what everyone else has said. It is hard not to like this. Although I think it would be fair to say it puts action over character development, this is, regardless, an excellent achievement and an achievement, ironically, that owes everything to its performances. Sure, the action is perfectly gripping and well staged (that batcycle is particularly cool and well done) but offers little new. The cinematography, however, is excellent and well above average for superhero films. It looks great and there are some stunning images. It is, as a spectacle, probably the most well photographed and meaningful-looking superhero film.

I also have to say that I loved the story in the same way I loved the first one. I like the way there is no attempt to make the superhero have to diffuse a nuclear bomb in the last reel or save humanity. I like the fact that there is no 'supervillain' plot. I really like the fact that this is all down to a psychotic, frightening, mentally (very) scarred clown who is seeking to show the world his (very) own brand of anarchism. Yes, there is the saving of lives involved but it doesn't (quite) require you to suspend belief in the same way so many films of the genre do.

Right, so on to the substance. It seems only fitting to start with Ledger. I think it would be very easy to add a touch of sympathy vote when discussing his performance but he is so far away from deserving that. This is a performance that is great in its own right and would certainly have been counted as such without the tragic death of the great artist who has depicted it on this moving, shadowy, canvas. Although I felt that the Joker's somewhat overdone laughter was unnecessary, annoying, detracting and an unnecessary throwback to the old (even pre-Nicholson) character, it is really the only criticism it is possible to offer. There is a great, though often unspoken, irony about great acting. It is that, the greater a performer becomes the harder it becomes for them to divert their audiences from the face and the character they see so often in the media, especially in a world which reverences celebrity above all else and all aspects of celebrity life are unpicked and offered shamelessly to the world to destroy or redeem as the world sees fit. This is what Ledger manages here. You totally forget you are watching Heath Ledger. Sure, the makeup helps, but makeup and costumes are nothing without soul, heart, passion and ability to provide substance to powder. Ledger has all of these characteristics in abundance. And, as so often with the great performances, it is the little things, the throwaway lines delivered effortlessly but with the kind of grace and charm only reality truly knows, that make this. I have in mind here particularly the moment where the Joker flicks his hair back while trying to charm Rachel and the perfectly delivered line "I wanna drive" which could only have possibly worked with the exact amount of charm, humour, fear and charisma that Ledger gives it. However, Ledger's crowning achievement is the one true, awful, moment of the Joker's failure. Those who have seen it will know what I mean. That instant tragic look in his eyes (gone minutes later when his personal predicament is actually much worse, in theory at least), as quick and as wonderfully distant as a shooting star crossing an empty night sky, is just about as perfect as acting can get. One of those rare moments every performer surely targets when an entire character's soul, depth and context is captured in one shot or look. Amazing. It is impossible to not comment at length on Ledger's achievement here, but that has nothing to do with his tragic death. It has everything to do with his spectacular performance.

Spoiler Warning

It would be equally unfair to Ledger not to point out that he is very ably supported here. I have said before that Christian Bale was perfectly cast as Batman and he grows into the role here, even if he is not quite given the room to play with the character, and his effort and talent, deserve. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are just perfect in the supporting roles as his sidekicks and Maggie Gyllenhaal is a notable improvement on Katie Holmes. I also feel very sorry for the excellent Aaron Eckhart, whose brilliant efforts in the first two thirds are undone by some hopelessly awful and overdone makeup and a character who is dispatched far too early like a Premiership manager in August. And what about Gary Oldman, again playing very off-type and playing it brilliantly. Both films would have been much poorer without the excellent Oldman, an actor, I must confess, I totally adore.

Harvey Dent should have been set up to lead the next film, not to be bumped off ineffectively and fairly thoughtlessly in this. Echkart's performance deserved a lot more, as did the story arc which will just have to do shamefully underexploited. Is that a symptom (also levelled at Spiderman 3) that the film was too full of characters and bad guys? I'm not sure it is. They could have just left Dent's fate out of this and the film would have been a lot richer for that. It isn't that there are too many characters it is just that not all those characters are used as wisely as they should have been.

Spoilers End

I also loved the morality tale in this. In fact, it was almost two and a half hours of morality tale. But it is one I'm sure I'll visit again. I won't say more as I've already added enough spoilers. Suffice it to say, the ending is brilliantly done and very thought provoking, again, certainly more so than most films of the genre and that is saying something when morality is the staple diet of superhero movies so centred, as they are, on the battle between good and evil.

I'll end there. I could say more but my fingers are starting to hurt. This will clearly come recommended, despite its flaws, but I've been wavering ever since I left the cinema, and throughout this review, between a B+ and an A-. I think it could have been better and I don't think it tops my favorite superhero film, Superman Returns (if only for sheer emotion and spirituality), but it improves on the first, if only marginally.