Monday, July 21, 2008

More hype for “The Dark Knight”

By Katie Libecco

Is the new Batman really that good?

Yep.

Much like “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight” (directed by Christopher Nolan) is a return to the darker roots of DC comic books. There’s also deeply woven themes of chance/luck and vulnerability. Combine those ideas with intense action, detailed special effects, and you get one adrenaline-filed and haunting film.

Christian Bale’s performance of Bruce Wayne/Batman is not so different than “Batman Begins,” playing the “masked vigilante” subtly and sincerely. Bale’s ability to tone down the character opens it up more than others who’ve played Batman before. Bale’s low-key screen presence and hushed voice produce a very dynamic Batman.

As far as Heath Ledger, I’m on the Oscar-buzz bandwagon. I thought no one could trump Jack Nicholson, but Ledger’s performance is such a different portrayal of the dastardly character. From start to finish, Ledger’s performance outshines (or maybe, out-freaks) every other character, stealing every scene. It’s hard to not respect this pathological performance. It’s unfortunate this will be Ledger’s sole Joker interpretation.

Supporting cast Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) also lend a hand to the success of “The Dark Knight” with solid performances. Maggie Gyllenhaal (older sister of Ledger’s “Brokeback Mountain” cowboy co-star Jake Gyllenhaal) as Batman’s love interest, Rachel Dawes, was good, though at times it felt like she was playing (her predecessor) Katie-Holmes-as-Rachel.

“The Dark Knight” also has some of the most creative killings I’ve seen outside of the horror genre, and somehow, they’re done without being too gory. (I now have a fear of pencils, OK?) I’ll also give a nod to well-thought-out cinematography that gives subtle plot cues in lighting and camera movement. There’s also plenty of cameos, but I’ll leave those to you to discover and enjoy.

I took issue with only two aspects of “The Dark Knight.” The first being the vocabulary level of the film. In the film’s dialect, “There’s no big words.” This film is aggressively written down to the lowest common [English] denominator. If you can understand a Bud Light commercial, you won’t have any trouble with “The Dark Knight.”

The second issue I have is from a cinematic standpoint. In what is an apparent attempt to make edits seem more natural, the standard trick of introducing a scene and allowing characters to walk/drive into it is utilized. That extra character movement slowed the film, and helped add to its 152-minute run time.

“The Dark Knight” appeals to a broad audience in more ways than vocabulary. For gearheads, the Batmobile “Tumbler” offers some exciting surprises, as do Bruce Wayne’s other forms of transportation. For history buffs, the film’s use of the [Fulton] Skyhook invokes memories of its long relationship with Popular Mechanics.

And despite the film’s pedestrian dialogue, there’s no shortage of quotable lines. I’m sure the Joker’s, “Why so serious?” is permeating vocabularies as we speak, so I’ll close with my personal favorite.

Alfred says to Batman, “In their desperation they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand. Some men aren’t looking for anything logical. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”