"The Dark Knight" Reviewed

In some ways, The Dark Knight is a good movie and a bad movie. And to be clear, it's not a good bad movie. It's pretty good. I'm just saying flaws exist.

As far as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, um, I didn't think it was necessarily darker than Jack Nicholson's rendition. After all, Nicholson did play the Joker as a murderous psychopath. That's the character. Can things get any darker than murderous psychopath? I don't think they can.

Ledger simply supplied what his screenplay called for, which was more violence than what the 1989 screenplay called for. The Dark Knight is definitely more violent, which allowed audiences to see more aggression and depravity out of the Joker. It's hard to imagine Jack Nicholson's Joker failing to match Ledger's Joker in terms of violent, sadistic behavior. It was all there in 1989. It was there. It was alluded to. We just didn't see it on the screen.

No, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker wasn't darker. Audiences just happened to see the darker behavior due to the rawer nature of The Dark Knight screenplay. I believe the public is confusing "darker" with "more violent." We saw a lot more violence and sadism from Ledger's Joker than from Nicholson's. Moreoever, Ledger owes a lot to the way The Dark Knight was shot and edited. His voice was clearly enhanced in some scenes by way of some very clever post-production trickery. Cameramen shook the lens once, maybe twice or thrice or more, to lend dramatic flair to Ledger's performance. They darkened the lighting on him at key moments to make him appear more sinister and more ... well ... darker. Ledger owes a lot to good cinematography.

Despite these tricks however, I do find Ledger's performance absolutely delightful in the overall scheme of things. Was he better than Nicholson? No. He was different. Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's Joker, they're apples and oranges to me. Neither one is better than the other. Both have their merits. Nicholson had more memorable lines to say. Ledger had more opportunities to act out and kill.

As far as Ledger's costume goes, I only wish that his hair were greener because in this day and age you need to distinguish yourself. That's harder to do now with all of the new media around us, vying for our attention. Without greener hair, Ledger reminded this writer of Robert Smith from The Cure. Granted, Smith keeps his hair jet black, but if Ledger's hair were greener, he would have appeared more distinctive and more recognizable as the one and only Joker. When reinterpreting pop culture icons, I want to see imagery that appears unmistakable.

I understand that colored hair isn't exactly in right now, and modern movies need to look modern, but in the case of the Joker, his hair really needs to be straight up green as opposed to sort of green and oily.

As far as the Batman goes, why the need to talk like a crank caller before the advent of caller ID? I understand that if Batman existed in real life that everyone would recognize Batman's normal voice and link him to Bruce Wayne, so he would need to disguise his voice, but this is a movie. You can take artistic license and say no one could make the comparison. I really don't want to hear Christian Bale contorting his voice. It's distracting, and it doesn't lend to elegant movie making. Other silver screen Batmen have contorted their voices, too. I'm tired of it now. Contorted Voice Batman is so passe. It's like one of those bad Kenner action figures. Slalom Racer Batman has to be one of the worst!

Back on point now. I say do things the way Adam West did it. When portraying Batman on camera, don't do anything with your voice. Just talk like a normal person. Who cares if someone in real life would notice and draw a bead to the alter ego? We're not talking about real life. We're talking about the DC Universe. It's make believe.

Another problem with The Dark Knight involves the editing. Everyone in Hollywood is inspired by the The Bourne Ultimatum, as they should be. But let's leave that type of shooting and editing to Paul Greengrass, who directed Ultimatum, and Christopher Rouse, who edited. They're the only guys who can execute that look properly. And they understand that that kind of production works best without a lot of dialogue. The Dark Knight's dialogue was too complex for the slick, quick Bourne-like editing.

I found the mid-conversation shot-jumping from speaker to speaker confusing and disjointed. The changes in perspective occurred too quickly. There was also a lot of movement on two-shots. This distracted me. The movement was paced way too fast. Here the characters are standing atop a building, and the skyline is just zooming past, and I'm trying to listen to their very important conversation, but they skyline won't slow down! OMG! Stop! I don't need a 360-degree perspective of a two-way conversation. Sets and camera pans shouldn't grab my attention when focus belongs to dialogue.

I also didn't like the mobsters' demeanor toward the Joker. They called him names like "freak." They showed little respect for him. They showed contempt as opposed to respect. They didn't fear him as they should have. I found this ridiculous.

I want to see a Joker movie where every criminal in Gotham knows of and fears the Joker. I don't care for all of this proving oneself junk. Let's cut to the chase. Give me an established Joker, widely regarded as the most dangerous man in the city. When the Joker talks, the criminals should listen.

The portrayal of the Joker as an unproven unknown was a disappointment. I don't care to see something like that again ever.

Furthermore, the Joker traditionally doesn't use guns. The character's use of machine guns and RPGs was over the top. It made for great action scenes in a movie, but in the end, the gunplay was a factual inaccuracy. The Dark Knight fails to depict the real Joker.

I felt The Dark Knight was too violent. I left the theater feeling stressed and edgy rather than relaxed. It went on way too long. The motivations of some of the characters didn't make sense to me. The story's outlook was dreary and downcast. Not one upbeat thought prevailed. I found this unnecessary.

The project lacks a legitimate Batcave and a legitimate Batmobile. That tank is no Batmobile. What it is is a factually inaccurate anomaly. There was no Robin. There was no Batgirl, no Batwoman.

On the upside though, all of the performances were solid. Maggie Gyllenhall did a solid job replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I don't watch a ton of movies anymore, so I had not seen her perform until now. Eric Roberts, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Aaron Eckhart were all excellent as well. Christian Bale was good in spite of the voice thing. I'll always give West the nod as "Best Batman Ever" with Michael Keaton a close second, but I think Bale has carved out his own niche as a very good Batman in his own right.

As far as the Oscar hype for Ledger, I believe he deserves the award because his portrayal created so much buzz. The buzz would have been there even if he hadn't died of an accidental prescription drug overdose. His performance is likely the most memorable of the year. He probably deserves the trophy. Plus, he was surprisingly funny. Nobody had commented about how funny he was. I had to discover this for myself.