Movie: The Dark Knight

[amedia]

Our parish priest is a very decent guy and has many admirable qualities, but he's not a good homilist. A lot of times we walk out of church saying, "You know, there were the makings of two or three good sermons in that ... but instead of sticking with one of them, he just went on and on and on!"

That pretty much describes my take on The Dark Knight. There were a lot of parts that I really enjoyed, but it really didn't need to be TWO AND A HALF HOURS long! And it didn't feel like an organic whole, more like bits and pieces stuck together. YMMV, of course.

Comments

[surranndie.livejournal.com]

Ya know, that's a really good description of it. I watched it recently and just...I couldn't get into it. It was so long and confusing and jumped from one separate story to the next. Granted, I'm easily confused and have a hard time focusing on movies to begin with, but yeah. I was disappointed after all the hype.

[naturalbluicons.livejournal.com]

I feel like they could have ended it at the hospital-splosion with the scene set for Two Face in the next movie.... I think Dark Knight had to have had like... six climaxes? Though I enjoyed it, it was veeeery long.

[kyleen66.livejournal.com]

My take on it was they were trying to put too much of the Batman mythology into one movie.

It was good, but it was too long. Agreed.

[lash-larue.livejournal.com]

For whatever reason, I was never tempted to see that one. Over-hyped, I guess.
L

[pocketwitch.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree. I did really enjoy it but don't feel the need to see it again. And there were parts where it just felt long, and that's never a good thing.

[neohippie.livejournal.com]

I suppose I was just so blown away by Ledger's Joker that the other stuff didn't bother me much (though I definitely agree it was a bit too long). I never really noticed the guy before until, sadly, this excellent last performance of his.

[bulleteyes.livejournal.com]

What follows is all opinion.

I watched it recently. I could not figure out why it is making so much money. Yes, it is exciting. Yet I have no desire to see it again. It lacked any real character development for me. I hear this over and over from others and I read it often. So other than an untimely death, why is this film making so much money? I can only attribute it to an untimely death and the loyalty of fans to the actor.

I know others have an understandable heartfelt response to Heath Ledger in his last performance. I felt his demise was far more tragic than this being his last role. When I see pictures of his daughter and see his facial features on that lovely little girl, my heart goes out to what he missed and what she will miss in not knowing her father. I don't tend to think about a last film. Admittedly, I am growing sentimental as I age so these things appear differently to me now.

The part of the Joker was well played but very oddly written. This was not a character who was written or directed as one from the comic universe. He was a brilliant psychopath who wore outlandish makeup and was terribly scared. There was nothing further to him. No reason for his behaviour other than to perpetrate death, mayhem and destruction, no back story, nothing to fit him into this type of universe. His character did not have any kind of satisfying ending which I know can still be manufactured even if an actor is no longer available. I put none of my questions on the actor. He was excellent. However he was not better than some other actors who have played brilliant psychopaths. Given some good writing and directing, as say, Anthony Hopkins had in Silence of the Lambs, this character could have and should have been as riveting and personally terrifying as Hannibal Lector. Anthony Hopkins was in that film for only about 17 minutes. Think of it. A character is burned into a society's memory in that short of a time. Remarkable. Hannibal will live on in the memories of people who saw that film. The Joker will live on for a while because Heath Ledger died far too young. Once some time has passed this character will not have the viewing impact as Hannibal simply because he was not was well written or directed.

Unfortunately due to the attention given to the death of one actor another actor who was just as good in a part was virtually ignored. Aaron Eckhart, who has not impressed me much in the past did an equally excellent job of acting in his more complexly written part. For some reason his character was given better writing and better direction. We see foreshadowing to his being double minded, he has a hint of the fury we later see as well as the decency and he had a well written ending.

Christian Bale was given little to do in this film. Why have an extraordinary actor and not allow him to act? Other than his lowering his voice to an almost unintelligible growl we see far too little of Christian's abilities.

In the first film, Batman Returns, we were allowed to have time with Bale and as the film went on his Batman had a worthy nemesis in Liam Neeson. This was a character from a comic universe who was written with a backstory, a reason for his actions and a satisfying ending. He was a great challenge to Batman.

I suppose that is what was lacking and disturbing in the Joker. He was not a challenge to Batman. He was a challenge to law enforcement. Had the law enforcement characters not been written as such inattentive fools there would never have been any need to call on Batman to deal with him. Believe it or not there are law enforcement officers who could have see into this psycho and taken this character down (as should have happened) and the film would have been considerably shorter.

[amedia.livejournal.com]

The part of the Joker was well played but very oddly written.

Yes! Your comments resonate with a long discussion that TODS and I had after viewing the film. His take was that the Joker seemed to come out of nowhere, and that this weakened the character. While we both admired how Heath Ledger played the character, Jack Nicholson's Joker got a long buildup so that we knew where he came from and how he came to be who he was.

One thing I did like about Heath Ledger's Joker is that part of his shtik was the way he pronounced words, exaggerating the final consonants: he was surprisingly easy to understand. Everyone else seemed to mumble. We watched the entire movie with subtitles on.

[bulleteyes.livejournal.com]

I noticed I did not spell something correctly:

"He was a brilliant psychopath who wore outlandish makeup and
was terribly SCARRED."

Sounds like you and I and TODS agree. This character should have been given some backstory, and he should have been introduced at a "comic book villain" who had the attending powers and abilities.

Ledger was excellent. He spoke like a person who had to relearn how to speak, with the attendant vocal exaggerations that sometimes come. This was a man who had a severe injury to his mouth so it makes sense he had to either be taught or taught himself how to speak. It was all the more ironic that he displayed the ability to enunciate when almost everyone else was murmuring or mumbling!

This director has proven himself very good in other projects. These actors have proven themselves very good. I still cannot understand why this film made so much money.

I haven't talked to anyone yet who wants to see it again or felt it was a satisfactory "Batman" film. All I hear or read about it Heath Ledger.