First Viewing, Initial Thoughts
Jul. 19th, 2008 10:07 amEDIT: Beware, the comments section has become rather spoiler-heavy!
I've wanted to hold off on this until I've conferred with a couple other people, or even until I've seen it again (on IMAX or otherwise). But so many people are posting about it, and even more, so many people are asking what I thought about it. I've never had so many people contact me out of the blue for the express purpose of hearing my thoughts. Not surprising, I suppose, all considered. But with all that, I guess it's time to post my first impressions, for the record.
So let's talk about THE DARK KNIGHT.
Okay. Here's the thing.
It's fucking amazing. Stunning, powerful, harrowing, haunting, and all other manner of adjectives abused by hack reviewers desperate to have their blurbs used on posters.
I could go on about everyone's performances in this film, virtually all of whom were fantastic. Seeing one of the greatest ham actors of my generation (this is a compliment), Gary Oldman, play the down-to-earth noble heart and humanity of Jim Gordon, the most realistic and grounded person in Batman's world period, was just wonderful. Maggie took a thankless and problematic role and fleshed it out in great ways. Michael Caine, we can watch you forever. Morgan Freeman, same thing (even if he was yet again playing, as one reviewer remarked, the "wise old black man"). Bale was excellent, even if his role suffered from the problem that plagued virtually all the Batman movies before BATMAN BEGINS: the hero being overshadowed by the villains. And the supporting cast, for that matter.
And yeah. Heath Ledger vanished completely. No trace of him remained. As many have remarked, that was the Joker.
Some are calling this film bloated, that a half-hour of streamlining could have truly made it a masterpiece, and I don't know how true that is. The only parts that come to mind is the scene in the garage with the "posers," if you know what I mean, and the subplot of the blackmailing employee, which were great and fun, but I don't know if they added anything to the heart of the story. I'll be wondering that upon repeat viewings, but I will say this: even the things that could have been cut were compelling. That's saying something.
No, upon first viewing, I have no complaints at all for any of that. The vast majority of the movie truly qualifies it at one of the greatest, if not the greatest, superhero film of all time*.
And yet, I cannot and likely will not ever be able to personally embrace THE DARK KNIGHT. All because of one specific aspect.
I'll give that one a whole post on its own, so let's hold off on discussion here until we get to that post. I mean, if you think you know what I'm talking about. I'm sure most of you have an idea, but chances are, you're only half right.
*Except how can one honestly compare this to, say, IRON MAN, which is another serious contender? That's the problem with the geek hyperbole of "best ____ ever!" You ultimately end up being forced to compare apples and oranges.
This could be a whole post in of itself, and maybe I'll address it if and when I write about the HULK movies, based around the following hypothosis that could come very handy in discussing these films: I think THE INCREDIBLE HULK was the better Hulk movie and the better comic book movie... but I firmly consider Ang Lee's HULK was the better movie.
I've wanted to hold off on this until I've conferred with a couple other people, or even until I've seen it again (on IMAX or otherwise). But so many people are posting about it, and even more, so many people are asking what I thought about it. I've never had so many people contact me out of the blue for the express purpose of hearing my thoughts. Not surprising, I suppose, all considered. But with all that, I guess it's time to post my first impressions, for the record.
So let's talk about THE DARK KNIGHT.
Okay. Here's the thing.
It's fucking amazing. Stunning, powerful, harrowing, haunting, and all other manner of adjectives abused by hack reviewers desperate to have their blurbs used on posters.
I could go on about everyone's performances in this film, virtually all of whom were fantastic. Seeing one of the greatest ham actors of my generation (this is a compliment), Gary Oldman, play the down-to-earth noble heart and humanity of Jim Gordon, the most realistic and grounded person in Batman's world period, was just wonderful. Maggie took a thankless and problematic role and fleshed it out in great ways. Michael Caine, we can watch you forever. Morgan Freeman, same thing (even if he was yet again playing, as one reviewer remarked, the "wise old black man"). Bale was excellent, even if his role suffered from the problem that plagued virtually all the Batman movies before BATMAN BEGINS: the hero being overshadowed by the villains. And the supporting cast, for that matter.
And yeah. Heath Ledger vanished completely. No trace of him remained. As many have remarked, that was the Joker.
Some are calling this film bloated, that a half-hour of streamlining could have truly made it a masterpiece, and I don't know how true that is. The only parts that come to mind is the scene in the garage with the "posers," if you know what I mean, and the subplot of the blackmailing employee, which were great and fun, but I don't know if they added anything to the heart of the story. I'll be wondering that upon repeat viewings, but I will say this: even the things that could have been cut were compelling. That's saying something.
No, upon first viewing, I have no complaints at all for any of that. The vast majority of the movie truly qualifies it at one of the greatest, if not the greatest, superhero film of all time*.
And yet, I cannot and likely will not ever be able to personally embrace THE DARK KNIGHT. All because of one specific aspect.
I'll give that one a whole post on its own, so let's hold off on discussion here until we get to that post. I mean, if you think you know what I'm talking about. I'm sure most of you have an idea, but chances are, you're only half right.
*Except how can one honestly compare this to, say, IRON MAN, which is another serious contender? That's the problem with the geek hyperbole of "best ____ ever!" You ultimately end up being forced to compare apples and oranges.
This could be a whole post in of itself, and maybe I'll address it if and when I write about the HULK movies, based around the following hypothosis that could come very handy in discussing these films: I think THE INCREDIBLE HULK was the better Hulk movie and the better comic book movie... but I firmly consider Ang Lee's HULK was the better movie.