Yes, he is still using that ridiculous “Batman Voice”.
Okay — As much as I would like to try, there is no denying that “The Dark Knight” is a solid example of entertaining cinema. It moves briskly enough to prevent boredom at all times, despite an overlong two-and-a-half hour running time. It is what it is… one of the better superhero movies in recent years (and there have been a shitload of them).
That being said — I am one of those people who believe that certain genres of movies are inherently sillier than others. Slasher films, teen comedies, superhero movies etc… They are, by definition, less likely to achieve greatness than other, more emotionally weighty, fare. Some people don’t like to hear that, but it is a generally unspoken consensus.
So, I am indifferent to superhero movies. Sue me! The fact is that most of them are typically silly, repetitive, childish, unoriginal, emotionally shallow and absurd. That is partly the reason they are so lucrative at the box office. Kids love that kind of stuff and adult males are always trying to rekindle the nostalgia of their youth.
Which brings us to this umpteenth Batman movie. I was forced to admit, despite my abhorrence for the Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney franchise, that I really liked “Batman Begins”. I really appreciated the “new” approach of that superhero film. It almost seemed like a plausible series of events, despite the man parading around in skin tight leather and growling his lines like a movie trailer voice-over guy. I gave that film three-and-a-half stars!
Along comes “The Dark Knight”, eschewing any attempted reality in favor of one explosive sequence after another. “TDK” doesn’t really bother with character or plot arcs. It is more concerned with keeping the adrenaline levels high and the logic low.
It also takes itself very seriously. There are hardly any moments of levity or self-deprecation. The film should answer its own tagline: “Why so serious?” Perhaps “TDK” filmmakers were unaware that they were making a movie about a “BAT” “MAN”. It is as if they thought this was the next “Godfather” installment.
Listen, I am not going to recap the plot basics for this film. Nor am I going to spend too much time reviewing a film that is generally critic-proof anyway. I just wish they had spent more time on the entirety of the movie, rather than the individual scenes. “TDK” just feels like a sequence of amusement park rides. That may sound good to you. It wasn’t my cup of tea.
“TDK” is escapist entertainment… nothing more. That is fine and dandy. On that level, it succeeds. I just happen to think that escapist entertainment is the simplest and easiest form of cinema to consume. It takes an incredibly good piece of fluff to win me over. “Batman Begins” worked. “The Dark Knight” was close, but no cigar.
“The Dark Knight” is not a poor film, by any means… It’s just not the pinnacle of cinematic brilliance that some have been claiming. It is merely a grittier than usual slice of masked vigilante pie — a fluffy little film roided up on testosterone infused violence, gruff voices and a supposedly terrifying villain played by Heath Ledger.
Sure, Ledger is intense in the role… But the acclaim he has been getting in the wake of his death is quite frankly obscene. It feels exploitative and hyperbolic.
In all honesty, his performance is a good one in a silly and one dimensional role. He did the best that the role could have allowed… and that’s that! Nothing more grandiose needs to be applied to a role that requires a purple suit, some silly make-up and a sore throat.
“The Dark Knight” is reasonable entertainment. It suffices as a good passage of time — although I think Hollywood should impose a maximum 90 minute running length on superhero flicks. Anything longer than that should be applicable only to grown-up movies.
I only hope that Oscar voters don’t feel mandated to reward box office receipts. This is a solid contender for the MTV Movie Awards or The People’s Choice Awards — But please, please, please… Academy Voters… please reserve Oscar night for more substantive material.
