The Dark Knight
Jul. 22nd, 2008 08:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmegaeraOkay. I am not a Fanboy as defined by Websters (or a Fangirl, for that matter). I will argue that I am at least as much a part of the target audience as anyone else, though, because I will be the first to admit that in spite of being a nearly 50-year-old female, I adore popcorn movies.
I seem, however, to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness here.
A dissenting view of the movie, for spoilers, I suppose, for the half dozen people in North America, at least, who haven't seen it yet, behind the
I am not a comics fan, and if you want to argue the merits of the movie by how closely it adheres, in any way, to the comic it is based on, you're in the wrong place. Period. The movie should stand on its own terms. Just so we get that straight, because I suspect that my two main objections to it as an enjoyer of popcorn and/or superhero movies are two of the things that most endear it to the FanBoys and/or Girls. Tough.
I am not arguing with any of the folks who think it's technically brilliant, although there was just way too much going on at certain points (the "Harvey Dent in the armored paddywagon" chase springs immediately to mind, not to mention the whole section of the movie that took place during the ferry sequence). I am certainly not arguing with any of the performances (Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes was probably the single best casting change mid-series that I can come up with at the moment), especially Heath Ledger's. The man was brilliant, no question about it, although I am sorely tempted to throw Ten Things I Hate About You into the DVD player just to wash the Joker out of my brain. This was also the first movie I'd seen Aaron Eckhart in, and I liked his arc and the way he played it out. And, of course, Christian Bale is, well, Christian Bale.
Which segues nicely into my first objection, since he played a large part in what made it this way. Which was the unrelenting doom of it all. Ye godlings, I'm glad I don't live in Gotham City. Yes, I understand that that's at least part of the point from the comics pov, but if that's the case, how do y'all keep reading the stuff? An intravenous drip of Wellbutrin?
My other objection is more of a "you get this in the comic" or maybe even, it just doesn't matter, but... I need some kind of backstory for the Joker. Psychopaths who are psychopaths for the fun of it without giving me some reason for why they've gotten twisted that way are just -- well, if you read Bujold, I don't like Baron Ryoval for the same reason. No bleeding backstory. He just likes to torture people. Roger Ebert says in his review that we get the reasons for the Joker's scars in dialogue, that his father sliced him up as a kid. Well, no, we get two different explanations for the Joker's scars from the Joker himself at two different times in the movie (the other one being that his wife sliced him up), and nowhere do we get either more than those two throwaway lines, or the least inkling that either one of them is true. So, no, in the movie we don't get an explanation. He's just a psychopath who enjoys giving people moral dilemmas along with killing them. Period. And while Ledger's portrayal was psychopathically brilliant, it was shallow, for reasons that weren't his fault (the script, people, the script).
So while I'm glad I saw The Dark Knight, I won't be watching it again, or buying the DVD the way I did Batman Begins. If I want to get that depressed again, I'll just go get drunk. Which is really too bad. I really admired Heath Ledger's talent. I just wished I liked the movie his final effort was in better.
I seem, however, to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness here.
A dissenting view of the movie, for spoilers, I suppose, for the half dozen people in North America, at least, who haven't seen it yet, behind the
I am not a comics fan, and if you want to argue the merits of the movie by how closely it adheres, in any way, to the comic it is based on, you're in the wrong place. Period. The movie should stand on its own terms. Just so we get that straight, because I suspect that my two main objections to it as an enjoyer of popcorn and/or superhero movies are two of the things that most endear it to the FanBoys and/or Girls. Tough.
I am not arguing with any of the folks who think it's technically brilliant, although there was just way too much going on at certain points (the "Harvey Dent in the armored paddywagon" chase springs immediately to mind, not to mention the whole section of the movie that took place during the ferry sequence). I am certainly not arguing with any of the performances (Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes was probably the single best casting change mid-series that I can come up with at the moment), especially Heath Ledger's. The man was brilliant, no question about it, although I am sorely tempted to throw Ten Things I Hate About You into the DVD player just to wash the Joker out of my brain. This was also the first movie I'd seen Aaron Eckhart in, and I liked his arc and the way he played it out. And, of course, Christian Bale is, well, Christian Bale.
Which segues nicely into my first objection, since he played a large part in what made it this way. Which was the unrelenting doom of it all. Ye godlings, I'm glad I don't live in Gotham City. Yes, I understand that that's at least part of the point from the comics pov, but if that's the case, how do y'all keep reading the stuff? An intravenous drip of Wellbutrin?
My other objection is more of a "you get this in the comic" or maybe even, it just doesn't matter, but... I need some kind of backstory for the Joker. Psychopaths who are psychopaths for the fun of it without giving me some reason for why they've gotten twisted that way are just -- well, if you read Bujold, I don't like Baron Ryoval for the same reason. No bleeding backstory. He just likes to torture people. Roger Ebert says in his review that we get the reasons for the Joker's scars in dialogue, that his father sliced him up as a kid. Well, no, we get two different explanations for the Joker's scars from the Joker himself at two different times in the movie (the other one being that his wife sliced him up), and nowhere do we get either more than those two throwaway lines, or the least inkling that either one of them is true. So, no, in the movie we don't get an explanation. He's just a psychopath who enjoys giving people moral dilemmas along with killing them. Period. And while Ledger's portrayal was psychopathically brilliant, it was shallow, for reasons that weren't his fault (the script, people, the script).
So while I'm glad I saw The Dark Knight, I won't be watching it again, or buying the DVD the way I did Batman Begins. If I want to get that depressed again, I'll just go get drunk. Which is really too bad. I really admired Heath Ledger's talent. I just wished I liked the movie his final effort was in better.
