thehefner | DARK KNIGHT: My Lovingly Harsh Criticisms (***SPOILERS***)

Okay. I've seen it a second time, not on IMAX as planned but rather on a small (smaller than the Uptown, anyway) screen. It's better that way, where I wouldn't be totally overwhelmed by the effects and experience and actually focus on the details with clear eyes and mind. Now I'm ready.

First off, since I'm hoping to *foster discussion* and not just wank to hear myself speak, I think it would be best to post a SPOILER WARNING.

We good? Okay.

You know I said SPOILERS, right?

Okay.

First of all, why does Batman sound like Nathan Explosion? Get the goddamn Batman a goddamn lozenge, please!

Secondly, I keep going back and forth about the whole Jim Gordon faked-death stuff. Was it *really* necessary to lie to his family like that? Gee, that's not gonna totally scar his kids for life, thanks, Dad! Dick move, Jimbo! Also, it's Jim goddamn Gordon; are they insulting our intelligence in making us think that they'd really kill him off? Please.

And speaking of his wife, let's come to my third point (and while I've mentioned it before, it's worth mentioning twice more): the female characters, and Rachel in particular.

angrylemur says it a lot better than I could, but I'll say it myself, there were only three major female characters in this film, the first of which did nothing but cry and be ineffectual, the second which cried and was traitorous, and the third which cried, did nothing, and died. Let me rephrase that last part: who existed solely to die, and why? So the male characters could have something to which they could react.

This doesn't piss me off nearly as much as it does certain ladyfriends of mine, but it doesn't sit well with me either, especially for... other reasons. More on this later.

Fourth, as a few critics were complaining about bloat, how the film could have truly achieved "masterpiece" status if it had just lost a half hour of footage, I've wondered what (if anything!) could or should be cut. After all, I'm sympathetic to long-winded bastards if they truly have something to say. And the first time I watched the film, there was not a single moment where I thought to myself, "This is going on too long, this should have been cut."

It was (pretty much) *all* compelling the first time around. Which is probably why the majority of people seem to be blind to the film's flaws, so overwhelmed as they are by everything else. And if they did/do see the flaws, so many folks are all-too-willing to excuse or ignore them, because the good outweighed the bad, right? No, the bad didn't even matter compared to how good the rest was. For these people, it seems like the good fucking *obliterated* the bad.

The rampant sweeping of this kind of thinking (everywhere from the critics to drowning out my own LJ friends list) is all the more reason why I'm going to be particularly harsh against a film I generally deeply adored.

And you know what? As much as I liked the whole sequence with the Scarecrow and the Bat-Imposters... it didn't do anything. Really, what did it add to the film? A cool action sequence, an excuse for Batman to want to upgrade his armor and weapons, an arbitrary running theme of dogs (or something; what was up with the dogs, anyway?), and a neat but pointless "Hey, I remember you!" cameo from the Scarecrow. Most importantly, I suppose, it touches upon how Batman is influencing the city, but not in the way he intended (which lends itself to comparisons to how Harvey is doing it better, and therefore, the big finale in general). But really, couldn't that have been established in a ten-second newsreel clip of the Bat-imposters and then just moved on?

Honestly, I think they should have cut that scene out entirely and put it online or someplace as part of the viral marketing, let it stands as its own mini-movie/maxi-preview (ala the way they played the entire bank robbery scene before IMAX screenings of I AM LEGEND some months back).

Then there's the Hong Kong sequence. The first time I saw it, I thought it was awesome, but afterward, I wondered how important it really was. As I was watching it again tonight, there was a point where I said to myself, "Ah, okay, that's why it's here, that's what it adds to the film in general, right." But now I'm sitting here typing this entry, and you know what? I can't for the fucking life of me remember what it was. Kinda says something, doesn't it?

So yeah, the Hong Kong sequence should have been cut in half. At least.

Because as good as these scenes were, they were kind of empty, at least compared to the rest of the film. This touches upon one of the problems with how uneven BATMAN BEGINS was, in that Nolan's strength there was on character, not action. Ask people what the biggest flaws in BATMAN BEGINS were (Katie Holmes aside), and more often than not, people will cite A.) the Batmobile vs. Police car chase, and/or B.) the whole third act.

But some of the very best scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT did what the absolute finest superhero comics do: they combined action with character. Compare the Joker vs. Harvey Dent's police caravan sequence to either of the scenes above. Notice anything different? Those scenes were cool but comparatively hollow, and maybe they were important so we could *build up* to those later, more (why so) serious action sequences...

... but I can't shake the feeling that they did indeed add to the bloat of the film and dragged it down, pushing the experience from "exhilarating" to "exhausting." But many people don't notice or care about this, and that's because Nolan and company just did it early on so you don't even notice as the film gets better and better... at least, until they jumped the shark entirely.

And here, we come to the big one. The one you knew was coming.

... fuck it, this entry is long enough. Let me give my Harvey Dent thoughts their own entry.

But yeah, I feel I should stress yet again how much I still loved this movie. Honestly, I don't think I could even add to all the accolades the film's already received. Anything I say would be redundant.

That said, and without even touching upon the big stuff yet, I'm seriously considering that the title for "Best Superhero Movie" belongs more to IRON MAN or THE INCREDIBLES.