Spring Break
'The Dark Knight' comes off too preachy
Movie Review : Drawn-out epic lasts too long
Steven Kilpatrick
Issue date: 7/24/08 Section: ARTS & LIFE
Since opening night "The Dark Knight" has become the top grossing four-day opener of all time (the highest weekend gross). It has sold about 23 million tickets and already sits atop the Internet Movie Database top 250 films list. There are enough accounts of this film that I could probably write the review through osmosis. However, like a rational human being, I went to the theater and saw the film myself.
Like most comic pulp, this movie drops the audience into the action in the middle of the story. While "Batman Begins" serves as an excellent primer for this 2008 follow-up, it is in many ways unnecessary. This iteration of the famous franchise pits Batman up against his arch-rival, the cackling clown prince of crime, the Joker. Batman fights for order and justice while the Joker tries to drag Gotham into chaos.
"The Dark Knight" is such a dense film that it practically serves as a sequel to itself. Just as the story seems to be resolving, the audience finds out it has just entered the third actóthe culmination of every falling domino. Where most summer fare would have the movie end at this obvious climax, "The Dark Knight" does not. Instead the audience gets a brand new tragedy, a brand new type of heroism and instead of extending this film with too much mindless action, director Christopher Nolan extends it with thoughtful moments.
People in the industry love to talk about scope, but it's often just a buzzword for spectacle: sensationalized cinema. But scope is about relevance and range. While Batman is spectacular, it is also relevant, a much taller order to fill amidst sadism, explosions and costumes. Every punch, explosion and car chase confirms Batman's pulp roots, but the movie is composed of quiet moments and spiritual discourse. Sometimes it gets a little preachy and philosophical, but the ratio of well-placed narrative vs. overwrought narrative is greatly favorable over the 152 minute run time.
As for that sadism: yeah, this movie is hopeful, but it is darkthere's a lot of sacrifice in this film, but just as much moral bleed. Some of the worst moments take place in the theater, as you'll find yourself laughing with the Joker despite his cruelty.
Our ability to laugh at this moral bankruptcy is a masterful indictment of our culture, and Ledger's final completed role is everything you've heard. It's a virtuoso's swan song and a dark treasure.
Is it a perfect film? As a fellow movie-goer said, "Why does Batman sound like the cookie monster after a root canal?"
Tell you what, I'll flip a coin. Heads you go see it.
Like most comic pulp, this movie drops the audience into the action in the middle of the story. While "Batman Begins" serves as an excellent primer for this 2008 follow-up, it is in many ways unnecessary. This iteration of the famous franchise pits Batman up against his arch-rival, the cackling clown prince of crime, the Joker. Batman fights for order and justice while the Joker tries to drag Gotham into chaos.
"The Dark Knight" is such a dense film that it practically serves as a sequel to itself. Just as the story seems to be resolving, the audience finds out it has just entered the third actóthe culmination of every falling domino. Where most summer fare would have the movie end at this obvious climax, "The Dark Knight" does not. Instead the audience gets a brand new tragedy, a brand new type of heroism and instead of extending this film with too much mindless action, director Christopher Nolan extends it with thoughtful moments.
People in the industry love to talk about scope, but it's often just a buzzword for spectacle: sensationalized cinema. But scope is about relevance and range. While Batman is spectacular, it is also relevant, a much taller order to fill amidst sadism, explosions and costumes. Every punch, explosion and car chase confirms Batman's pulp roots, but the movie is composed of quiet moments and spiritual discourse. Sometimes it gets a little preachy and philosophical, but the ratio of well-placed narrative vs. overwrought narrative is greatly favorable over the 152 minute run time.
As for that sadism: yeah, this movie is hopeful, but it is darkthere's a lot of sacrifice in this film, but just as much moral bleed. Some of the worst moments take place in the theater, as you'll find yourself laughing with the Joker despite his cruelty.
Our ability to laugh at this moral bankruptcy is a masterful indictment of our culture, and Ledger's final completed role is everything you've heard. It's a virtuoso's swan song and a dark treasure.
Is it a perfect film? As a fellow movie-goer said, "Why does Batman sound like the cookie monster after a root canal?"
Tell you what, I'll flip a coin. Heads you go see it.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
Josh
posted 7/24/08 @ 12:12 PM CST
Who thought up the headline for this article? It has nothing to do with the review. The caption gives a negative feel while the writer praises the film. (Continued…)
Steven Kilpatrick
posted 7/24/08 @ 10:56 PM CST
I'll admit I was a little surprised by the headline myself, but I've learned to put stuff like that out of my mind.
I also didn't write most of the second paragraph. (Continued…)
Brian Stephens
posted 7/25/08 @ 4:56 PM CST
Uh. Things never change. A Daily copy editor once put the verb 'catfight' in a headline for as story I cowrote about the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance. (Continued…)
Phil Banker
posted 7/25/08 @ 6:45 PM CST
I'm the Arts and Life Editor, and I'd just like to say that I didn't write the headline, but if I had I certainly would have picked a better one.
I was asked to insert something *about* the movie, so I put in the two sentences in the second paragraph, those being "This iteration of the famous franchise pits Batman up against his arch-rival, the cackling clown prince of crime, the Joker. (Continued…)
Steven Kilpatrick
posted 7/25/08 @ 9:36 PM CST
Yeah, I figured if you'd made any edit it was to the second paragraph and I figured it was because you needed something about the film.
I also figured my stuff about graphic novels wound up being a bit too loose anyway. (Continued…)
Taylor Short
posted 7/26/08 @ 12:03 PM CST
Sorry about the headline, Steven.
It was chaotic that night, but I probably should've tried to change that.
Either way, it was a good review.
Steven Kilpatrick
posted 7/26/08 @ 5:25 PM CST
I wanted to back Phil up. The comic pulp comment was there, and not as a derogatory comment. I'm talking about the paper old comics are printed on, and not the quality of the work. (Continued…)
Phil Banker
posted 7/26/08 @ 9:19 PM CST
The whole idea of quantifying the quality of a movie into a 0 to 5 integer is silly to me, really. Is the general public so dense that they can't read 400 to 500 words to formulate an opinion on a movie? Alas, it's not my decision. (Continued…)
Starving Journalist
posted 7/27/08 @ 1:08 PM CST
It doesn't get any better at "real world" newspapers either Steven. I'm a reporter at a medium daily (Circ. 35,000) and our copy editors are sometimes ambivalent about the content of the story, especially when crunching a late deadline on an event you just covered an hour ago. (Continued…)
Havok
posted 7/31/08 @ 12:31 AM CST
Pretty good review there but the headline is awful. That really seems to be a trend at the Daily. Embarassing for me since I got my degree in journalism at UNT. (Continued…)
Post a Comment