I'm just going to list the positive and negative things because I'm lazy today and I have to go watch TV.
Good things:
+ Heath Ledger, absolutely my favourite Joker from now on. This is how I thought Joker should be.
+ Harvey Dent until the first half of the movie.
+ Gary Oldman, once more a solid performance.
+ Plot, not bad.
+ Bat suit, cool enough.
Bad things:
- Batman's voice (c'mon does anyone take him seriously with that voice that says "I've been drinking whiskey for twenty years"?)
- Bat car/bike, 'nuff said.
- Russians as bad guys. Why always the Russians? (or the Germans) Why not the Brits or the Chinese? You can make a movie with the Chinese as regular bad guys, you don't have to always use kung-fu with them!
- Harvey Dent in the last half of the movie.
- Bagpipes. Do they really use them in the States in every government official's funeral? Please let me know.
To put it all together shortly:
Heath Ledger IS the movie. Batman movies have always been about the bad guys and The Dark Knight is no exception.
Stars: ****
Oh, and a comment about the whole "should Ledger get an Oscar for this movie" -thingy.
The guy is dead. If he was still alive then definitely yes. But I think that it should be handed to someone whom we can hear say thank you.
Now I'm off to watch telly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Russians as bad guys. Why always the Russians? (or the Germans) Why not the Brits or the Chinese? You can make a movie with the Chinese as regular bad guys, you don't have to always use kung-fu with them!"
--> Germans make good bad guys (smart, smart, motive usually money)!!
I agree on British (although they usually come in two types: "the sophisticated 'I speak in perfect accent and have a red hair' -idiots" or the "backstreet 'I speak in a language that nobody understands' thugs" -who are not convincing at all. Both types which I hate. The good British bad guy? Sophisticated but not that aristocratic red heads.)
How about Japanese or South Korean (sic. not North Koreans -at least not in the US movies) bad guys? They would make brilliant ones. I think Chinese are too stereotyped to work (I'd like to see a producer who wouldn't throw kung fu in).
French? Might be. Scandinavians? Not believable. Russians? Yes, if you make them smart (and not like in Indiana Jones 5...). Latinos? Okey.
And the worse bad guys? Those whose motive is religion. Can there be more boring and flat bad guys?
A good bad guy, regardless, should, above all, be smart and seemingly always one step ahead (and handsome, if possible ;).
Dark Knight
-------------
What is wrong with the Dark Knight, as with the first Bale-Batman, is that those movies are flat as pancakes. First movie sucked but the second was at least better.
Now with the pancake explanation. When it comes to original Batman movies (Batman -89 & Batman Returns -92), they were cohesive and delivered a story and its surroundings in one package. Things happened in the Gotham City in a Gotham city-way. Batman was the pivotal character even though the role was partly stolen by Joker or Catwoman. However, it was about the Batman and his world.
With Bale's Dark Knight the movie is like a flat surface with some occasional shining marbles scattered here and there. Sure, there are some good moments in Dark Knight (like the ending of the parade) but the worst thing is that there is no Batman there. There is somebody but not a real presence that would really dominate the movie. Also, the atmosphere of Gotham City is lost.
Supporting characters
------------------------
What bothers me the most is that other characters were stronger than Batman who was as unforgettable as it gets (with a regrettable sore throat). Alfred came out stronger that Bruce Wayne (and probably would "have taken care of it" had all been left to a butler). Gordon had more character than Batman and Ledger was an excellent bad guy. Ledger made a good, funny & an interesting bad guy but not necessary a Joker, though. At least Harvey Dent was more ridiculous than Batman (in the last part of the movie).
Toys
-----
Bumper, the bike. C'mon. If you set a movie in "real life" (vs Gotham) then, please, make your toys more believable. How many normal cars would outrun bumper? A round can does not make a fast car. And when Batman needs to reverse, how many people would he hit (or does the bumper come with a warning peep-sound like trucks do)?.
Plot
----
Decent but boring and too long (i lost interest in the half way, how long was the movie? 5 hours? 10? a never-ending story). Too boring when Joker was not around, who was left with the most entertaining scenes. The ending was boring (but I'm glad it finally came & the movie ended!) and nobody would have given a toss about the people who were threatened. The only nice thing about the ending was the Joker factor.
Conclusion
------------
Dark Knight was definitely better than the first Bale-movie (which was full of cliches) but then again, the plot was too un-cohesive. Too many side things & people. It just did not tie together (mind me, a plot can have many side stories or side things but they have to all belong). Too long, too boring, too unlike Gotham (but maybe that's what the kids today want). A little better than the same *#!"* mass-produced movies made today for teenagers. It was pain to watch this movie without a fast-forward button.
2,5 points.
Post a Comment