The Knight's Darkest Tale (film only) (The Dark Knight (2 DVDs))

Member Name: calypte

Product:	The Dark Knight (2 DVDs)
Date:	04/08/08 (323 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: well written, well acted - just a very well put-together movie!

Disadvantages: dark, tense and violent; slightly overlong and almost two stories, really

At the very end of Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan's first instalment of this 'reboot' of the franchise, the newly-promoted Lieutenant Gordon tells Batman that many of the freed inmates of Arkham Asylum are still on the loose. Take this guy - running around in a clown outfit, leaving his calling card: the joker from a pack of cards. "I'll look into it," says the Bat.

And so here we are three years or a few months later, and Batman is indeed going to have to look into the Joker - for Gotham City is a changed placed since the Bat appeared: grimmer, bleaker. As the new District Attorney puts it, "The night is always darkest just before the dawn" - and let me tell you, we are about to hit the darkest of dark patches here.


Being a billionaire doesn't mean that Bruce Wayne's life is running smoothly. His house, Wayne Manor, burned down in the previous film; his love, Rachel (Katie Holmes' replacement, an adequate if not brilliant Maggie Gyllenhaal), is dating the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who's an annoyingly decent bloke; his double life as caped avenger, Batman, is spawning copy-cat vigilantes, more likely to need rescued themselves than actually help; and the bad guys have decided that if the good guys are dressing up in black and waging a war of terror, well - they're just going to have to find some way to up their game, too...

I think what gripped me about the new take on the Batman story, starting (appropriately) with Batman Begins and continuing here, is the 'reality' factor. There is a thread of plausibility here: no radioactive spiders, no mutating potions - just one man with an obscene amount of money and a few obsessions. Dark Knight continues with this strength: the Joker (Heath Ledger) is at once totally deranged - "an agent of chaos" as he puts it - and yet quite believable, and all the more chilling for it. We never quite find out why he is as he is - there's more than one version of the story - and again that makes it all just more... real. No vats of acid, just a very internalised kind of madness, finally given an output in a world where man-bats run around.

A lot - a LOT! - has already been said about Ledger's final completed performance, and I'm annoyed at how distracting it was. Instead of being able to enjoy the show, I was constantly thinking, "Oscar? Hmm. Maybe?" - argh! Truth is, his take of the Joker is indeed very good, in a chilling kind of a way. I do wish I'd been able to take it for what it was, without the hype and hyperbole, and overshadowing of real-life tragedies.

It all perhaps overshadows the other main performance in the movie: Christian Bale as Batman. This is the first portrayal of the character that I've felt any empathy with, that I was willing to understand, and I think kudos for that has to go mainly to the script but also to Bale's characterisation. That said, perhaps a little too much of the inner turmoil - is he doing good, or more harm overall? - is given through straight exposition: every twist is discussed with butler Alfred (an as-ever brilliant and understated Michael Caine), or love interest, Rachel.

The love interest part of the story is well handled, I think. It helps that Rachel's character, and Maggie Gyllenhaal in the role, are strong and independent, not just there for the 'superhero'. Nor is the plot thread there superfluously, as it very much highlights Bruce Wayne's dilemma: should he continue with what he's doing? Can he keep the two lives separate? How can he retire the Bat, should he want to? Can he have a normal life again?

But not to worry, this isn't just a film about one man's angst - it's very much about those baddies, and alongside the Joker we also have a cameo from Batman Begins' Scarecrow (a bit pointless, really, apart from highlighting that the Arkham inmates are still free, and getting pretty boy Cillian Murphy in shot ;)), and then Two Face: half mad, half scarred, living via the half-chances of a flip of a coin. Unlike the Joker, we are shown the full genesis of this baddie, and the balance is very well conceived. The Joker is more menacing for being mysterious; Two Face needs to have both sides of his character explored, the before and after. It's all the more chilling for seeing what he loses, what causes the transformation.

This is such a long movie, it is tempting to think that the two story threads are almost two movies. However, the two tie together completely, if slightly out of balance in who gets what screen time - Two Face barely appears before the end, really. I have to say, though, that this is the first Batman movie I've seen where having more baddies didn't cause the whole thing to start to fall into farce - it works, and works well!

A note is appropriate at this point on special effects. The best SFX are the ones you barely notice - and the bulk of the film hits this pretty perfectly. However, Two Face is obviously going to require *something* to show the ruined side of his face. Now, I want you for a moment to think back to Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever, and the Freddy-Kruger-esque rubber makeup. This is NOTHING like that - it's genuinely alarming, to the point where even the obviousness that it's CGI didn't stop me feeling quite disturbed!

Talking of which - how the heck did this film get a 12A rating?! I know I've often underestimated the bloodthirstiness of the younger generations, but surely not here? There is a lot of violence, the whole mood is incredibly dark and threatening - I'd definitely think twice before taking the young'uns, people. The 'magic pencil' scene, the beating in the jail cell, and the constant posturing with the knife - I think the argument is that you aren't *seeing* as much as you think, but I'd still suggest there's more than enough here to let a child copy, with possibly horrific results.


Some contractions to finish off: I did enjoy this film, a great deal - although I couldn't call it an 'enjoyable' movie. It is VERY well made, very creepy and atmospheric - but I won't be buying the soundtrack, with the unsubtle rising crescendo tone of noise! However, as excellent as I thought it was, Dark Knight is far from a happy film. The tone is incredibly dark and bleak, all the more so for the 'realism' touch, and the mood very tense. Which is, I think, why it didn't all sweep me up the way I would have liked: my interest was utterly captured; I needed to know what was coming next, and yet... I was aware that it was a long film. I didn't begrudge a second of it, but I was probably too busy trying not to hide behind my fingers to let myself be entirely caught up!

Definitely worth seeing, and again, and I'll be buying the DVD. But the complexity of the stories and the characters - the things that make this a good movie - are also things that stop it being something you can unthinkingly sit through, methinks.


~ Boring Bits ~

*Running time: 152 minutes
*Rating: 12A, but I'd advise against taking under 15s, quite frankly - it's scary and violent!
*Theatrical release: 24th July 2008
*DVD release: 8th December 2008


Full cast details can be found on imdb.co.uk

Summary: Gotham's darkest-ever chapter