Okay folks, I just got back from the theater, and here’s my review condensed into a single sentence:
The Dark Knight is decently written, well-directed, really well-acted, and lasted about half an hour beyond the point where I started to wonder just why the hell I should care.
Okay, two more things:
#1, Gotham City has, apparently, a massive security problem. (Spoiler warning! Highlight below for inviso-text:)
How the hell did the Joker manage to sneak THAT much explosive into the hospital without anyone noticing? Likewise with the ferries, and THOSE you’d figure they might’ve checked BEFORE leaving the dock.
and #2 (more inviso-text below):
So, okay, you want to save Harvey Dent’s good name and don’t want him blamed for the five or so murders he did toward the end. Fine. I get that. But hey, since we’re pinning them on someone who DIDN’T do it and therefore have no real evidence anyway, how about we pin it on, oh, say, ANYONE other than Batman? Gosh, if only there were a homocidal lunatic running around that the public would be more than willing to unquestioningly accept as a scapegoat. Ah, well.
Talk about manufactured pathos.
It was a decent movie, just…a lot more “meh” than a lot of the critics are saying. But hey, they get paid to review things, right? So what do I know? 😉
Michael
www.michaelgmunz.com
(Technorati tags: Dark Knight, Batman)
So I loved Dark Knight – in ways like Twin Peaks loved Laura Palmer or dogs love anything on a floor. As hyped as Ledger’s performance was, it exceeded the hype and my expectations, and everyone else was way beyond solid. I will respond to your two points.
1. Why do you think Gotham needed Batman in the first place? They have the most incompetent cops this side of Keystone.
2. While I agree with this point, although not to the point where it colors my opinion of the movie, it’s funny to think about what if they just made someone up. Batman could be like “uhhhh…it was…errrr…The Haggler!” and everyone in Gotham would believe it. There’s a guy that has an evil puppet hand for pete’s sake!
I’ve heard people argue that pinning things on Batman was something he was willing to accept also because he didn’t want Gotham to idolize him and use him as a crutch. That makes sense, but it’s a shame that angle wasn’t brought up when they were discussing him taking the blame to make the idea seem a little less contrived.
Then again, maybe they did discuss it, and I just wasn’t paying attention by then. (It’s possible allergy medication may have affected my viewing of the movie.) 🙂
I don’t think that was brought up. Likely it might have been in a first cut of the movie but got dropped because Nolan realized he was 2.5 hrs in and he needed to wrap things up. Still, point taken.