GO
 
     

HOME > MOVIES > DARK KNIGHT, THE

DARK KNIGHT, THE

by Matt Cale

dk1

Perhaps it was the comparison to The Godfather Part II that did me in. Or maybe the unending stream of outstretched arms, ready to embrace this picture as not only among the best of the year, but as an epic crime drama all but transformed into an instant classic. But then, it may have been the Oscar talk, or the hyperbolic rushes of orgasmic glee that would seem to herald the fulfillment of every critical desire and adolescent fantasy under the sun. Is this it, then, the apex of the genre, the final showdown, the future standard bearer that has it all, says it all, and is all, now and for all time? All grating, all maddening, and all furiously overstated, yes, but in the end, it may also come down to the fact that throughout the film’s unjustified, unnecessary, unfulfilling 152 minutes, I could not for the life of me understand why Batman continually shot for -- and nailed -- a pitch-perfect impression of Clint Eastwood. Yes, even while completely alone, or with a close friend who knew who the fuck he was, for fuck’s sake (and there being no reason at all to hide his identity) he channeled the Man With No Name as if auditioning for a Rich Little variety show. And so I waited for an answer, though that knowing wink never came.

In his car, solo and frustrated, was that voice. Standing in an empty room, save Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman, a Negro, thought not entirely Magic this time), a man quite aware of Bruce Wayne’s alter ego, he spoke as if in disguise; a figure of mystery bearing the world’s loneliest burden, though with the trademark squint and dusty poncho of another, more masculine icon. What purpose did it serve? Surely someone, at some point along the way, knew that for Christian Bale to convincingly inhabit one of pop culture’s most recognizable characters, it would not be a good idea to portray him as a manifestation of a figure equally familiar? Right? Was the director aware of how ridiculous he sounded? Did he care? And why do I have the sneaking suspicion that I’m about to be inundated with vaguely threatening emails that suggest Batman’s intonation is the result of a superhero outfit pulled too tight about the diaphragm, or some obscure metallic compound found in Gotham leather goods that presses on the larynx just so, and didn’t I read the special edition liner notes of Bob Kane’s unpublished memoir that, like, explains the whole fucking thing?

dk2

I am decidedly not the person to be tackling this review, and it’s just as likely that I had no business attending the damn movie to begin with. I hate the genre, loathe the impulse that foists such movies on an all-too-willing herd of sheep every summer season, and am the first to point out that as “dark” and “edgy” as such films claim to be at this point in a failing republic, it is still just some swanky playboy in a bat suit smacking around assorted cartoons. As such, all metaphors are forced, all cultural tie-ins mere happenstance, and rather than a picture for our times, The Dark Knight is simply a cynical turn in much the same way The Empire Strikes Back created a temporary bump in an otherwise smooth road through sci-fi heaven. Yeah, it’s fun that the bad guy gets away, or that he commits his crimes for sheer, anarchic delight, rather than financial reward, but that doesn’t make the story any less incoherent, or the chase scenes any less tedious in execution. This is a pulp experience that goes on and on and on, with the tired assumption that length connotes depth, and somber tones -- and the occasional cackle -- inject relevance and insight into an adolescent’s approach to morality and ethics. See, we have come to expect the clash of good and evil in our cinematic comic explosions, and whenever a hero flirts with ambiguity -- even halfheartedly -- we automatically assume we’re one step from Chinatown.

It’s as if Christopher Nolan knew that for the franchise to receive renewed attention after the joke-heavy clunkers of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, he had to exploit our need for more burdened heroes; tortured, conflicted men who no longer had the will to flick away their demons with cool one-liners or the occasional toothy grin. Sure, it’s a welcome retreat from deliberate idiocy, but merely adding gray to what used to be a sunburst of color doesn’t alter the intent, or the final result. As such, we don’t much care about Wayne’s dilemma, which amounts to whiny belligerence, rather than a titanic struggle with the heavy themes of the day. Additionally, the entire production is hijacked by a supporting character, which is often the case in films of this type, but here seems to highlight Batman’s inescapable dullness. Perhaps no one could hope to compete with Heath Ledger’s Joker, the one shining light in the entire movie, because he alone seems alive. While the others -- from Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent to Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel Dawes -- pout and mope and wear their pain on their sleeves, the Joker takes pride in his work, even if such labors amount to little more than putting a city through hell for the sheer delight of watching it burn.

But more than the character overshadowing the rest of the limp cast, it is Ledger himself who reminds the audience how out of place he is in such a production. His talent is obvious, and his natural rhythms create nuance and ambiguity where the writing may not be up to snuff. Sure, the Joker is given all the good lines (and the only passages that strike one as thoughtful), but even when silent, Ledger makes everyone else choke in the exhaust of his superiority. Take Bale by way of comparison: not only has he been one of the decade’s most overhyped performers, he reminds us again (as if the painful Rescue Dawn hadn’t been enough) why he cannot handle even the slightest hint of emotional disturbance. When he screams, or seems on the edge of sanity, his buffoonery all but swallows him alive. Add to that the appalling Eastwood garble and you have a performance that should have everyone consulting their Razzie ballots come January. Though all but Ledger compete for the stilted trophy of shame, it is Bale who takes us right out of this world with his calculated, phoned-in despair. He might have made it had his Batman been a striking contrast to his clueless Wayne (much like Christopher Reeve gave us a cocksure Superman against a pitiful Clark Kent), but both incarnations are so fitfully uninteresting that I wish he’d have turned in his cape from the outset and let the Joker do his business in peace.

dk3

Again, though not thrilled by any one scene of The Dark Knight (and bored shitless by the film’s first hour), I could at least extract a modicum of joy from the Joker’s willingness to bomb hospitals and murder plucky heroines. And when he says that his acts are not personal -- just business, like the Corleone clan (there I go, making my own comparisons to The Godfather) -- we don’t care if he means it; we just want him to tackle a nursery next. Oh, and I’ll be damned if he doesn’t exploit the school bus motif throughout, as if we wouldn’t notice that the rotten Scorpio killer from Dirty Harry did exactly the same thing. Here, as with that cheerfully fascist monument to an era, it’s as if co-opting the image of childhood for evil purposes is about the worst thing any human being could ever hope to do. And yet, the Joker won’t touch the ultimate no-no of killing a wee one onscreen (he flirts with it, but no dice), so we’ll have to settle for cops and the like. Ledger’s creation, then, has the heft to warrant discussions of compromised decency, and how good people just might have to adopt unsavory methods to triumph over the dark side, but alone, not even he is up to the task. His ruminations titillate, but die on the vine once we swing around to the drip in the bat suit.

Even Dent’s transformation into Two-Face grinds away with little cheer (though he does use a coin like he watched No Country for Old Men too many times), and the expected result -- his physical deformity and loss of love leave him bereft and hungry for vengeance -- comes around so dutifully that we simply shrug and move on. Yes, it’s an improvement on the ludicrous Tommy Lee Jones turn from years ago, but must we salivate over an idealistic district attorney’s fall from grace? Again, he’s simply killing time until we can return to the real attraction. And maybe my break for popcorn was a bit long, but I’m still not sure what Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) had to do with anything, and while I know the money was a classic MacGuffin, every scene involving gangs, rival gangs, and bank robberies made my eyelids that much heavier. I cursed the explosions, resented the jumps from high buildings, sat slack-jawed at the return of Eric Roberts, and couldn’t shake the feeling that Michael Caine actually found an easier paycheck than Jaws: The Revenge. And why again were they in Hong Kong? Nolan is a talented director, but here, he’s flirting with an undue pretension, as if he felt a twinge of guilt for playing to the nerds, so he had to convince the suits he was creating a modern fable. But allusions to Bush wiretaps and the erosion of privacy must be more than mere plot devices. Issues of real-world importance deserve a serious forum, not exploitation at the hands of carnival barkers.

DARK KNIGHT, THE Review
A Fistful of Guano
by Matt Cale
Viewed: 8811 Times
Posted: 7.20.08

Syndicate This Review!
(Help us get the word out...add this article to your favorite news & content aggregators.)
Post to del.icio.us Digg This Post to Furl Post to ma.gnolia.com Post to Newsvine Post to Reddit Post to Spurl Post to Yahoo Post to Facebook Post to Facebook Post to Yahoo



USER FEEDBACK


oh no
what's wrong Cale, the wife made u see this instead of MAMMA MIA? you are my fat little dancing queen.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
joe on 7/20/2008 @ 2:16:54
Eh
Haven't seen the movie yet, but you were really stretching for this review. Bale's voice was that much of a distraction? And you really think people are going to e-mail you explanations for Bale's Batman voice? Really? One of your more boring reviews. If I was a Matt Cale, I would've tried to find a way to criticize Heath Ledger's performance. That would've been a review FOR the ages.
Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Bob on 7/20/2008 @ 4:12:02
fatnerd
I Lol'ed at "fat little dancing queen comment", but Joe, there is no way matt cale has a wife.. he's a fat no talented wannabe critic..
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
fatnerd on 7/20/2008 @ 4:46:59
??
I really don't understand why there was all the Bale bashing for his performance, especially when grading on a scale, comparing it to Keaton, who was alright as batman but was friggin Mr.Mom as Wayne. This movie was refreshing from the old crappy superhero crap, where you can boil down the entire movie to the same set of events with a simple interchange of heroes and villains in the roles. Saying that Eckhart watched No Country for Old men too many times its kinda funny, considering that No Cou
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Tomcat on 7/20/2008 @ 6:23:38
Cale Sucks
Congrats, Cale. You're officially different and edgy. You sad-sack tub of crisco.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Cale Sucks on 7/20/2008 @ 6:57:11
He's half right
It's wonderful you are back, Cale. And you're right about the joker. Sadly, the he's just not as evil as he SHOULD be. Where's the random murders? We live in a time where we've witnessed Javier Bardem in No Country, and a PG-13 compromise cuts any chance at facing true dread. We should be more frightened by the Joker.
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
... on 7/20/2008 @ 10:31:36
Your points are valid...
...but how does it feel to be the crabby middle aged man that can't enjoy a good ass-kicking action movie? I know it’s not Death Wish, but does camp and irony have to be a requirement for your popcorn flicks? I know your original persona on the site was an angry one, but lately you suck at criticizing movies, but are fantastic at extolling great ones. Stick to reviewing the good stuff that I wouldn't hear about except for this site. Let Erich and others review the mainstream.
Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Sacks Romana on 7/20/2008 @ 10:34:13
This shit is getting old.
Another boring, against-the- establishment-for-the-sake-of being-against-the-establishment review from a writer who perpetually squanders his talent by flailing around helplessly as the quicksand of his own cute-for-five-minutes shtick inches closer to consuming him completely. You really are a fucking disappointment, Cale.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Some Asshole on 7/20/2008 @ 10:49:07
You seem to be right about this one, Matt!
The fanboys are already embarassing themselves (if you can't counter an argument, just insult, right?). And regarding the wrongness of this movie, even rather tame reviewers (e.g. Odd Todd) say exactly the same thing. ZAR.
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
ZAR on 7/21/2008 @ 2:36:37
Good
Cale is right, the only good thing about this movie is the Joker. It needed a lot more of him and much less Batman.
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Joe on 7/21/2008 @ 2:49:42
I'm Batman, punk!
Bale's Eastwood voice was weird. At one point I actually couldn't understand what he said. Not that it mattered in the long run. I don't like comic book films, but the one I can tolerate is Batman. And The Dark Knight was passable entertainment, and I think will be seen as more mediocre than it is now in the long view of history. In 2018 people might be looking back at this film in the same way we do now at American Beauty and think, "They really liked this movie back 10 years ago???"
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
BillFenner1967 on 7/21/2008 @ 6:13:58
cale's right... kind of
this movie should'a been called the joker.. i also hated the pg-13 crap, no children died, ahh fuck it, i wanted to see gore and blood, i particularly despised that the cons and the regular people didn't blow each other up, that ruined it, and bale's lisping growling batman, that got old on begins... anyway don't let the nerds get you down cale
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
dude on 7/21/2008 @ 6:23:36
Cale's just like Knowles
but while Knowles will use obnoxious, un-funny hyperbole to lather on the praise of terrible movies just to ass kiss Hollywood, Cale will use obnoxious, un-funny hyperbole to criticize excellent films just to seem edgy. Also, to say The Joker isn't all that bad because he doesn't kill any kids (once again, how edgy you are), yet went off on how great Anton in NCFOM was, even though he himself didn't kill any kids. Once again, you're excellent when giving positive reviews, but your fashionable
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Stainfellow on 7/21/2008 @ 12:36:53
BarelySimian
I enjoy your reviews most, Matt, when you go deep into the film you are reviewing and analyze not only the content, but the assumptions that gave rise to the entire thing. At your best, you achievements here dwarf the movie you are reviewing. Here it reads like you didn't want to review it at all. If so, why bother? A few examples - the Joker doesn't use school buses because he is so evil, he uses them because it allows him to get away. Any society will have some assumptions and behavior that
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
BarelySimian on 7/21/2008 @ 3:54:48
jordan
i really could care less whether or not you like the film, even when i violently disagree with you i still find your reviews entertaining and insightful, but dude, no country for old men the book came out in 05, the movie in 07...the character of two-face has been around for fifty plus years, doing the coin toss. he's not a rip off of chigurh. carry on.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
yaaay on 7/21/2008 @ 4:22:12
GIve him a break
I love how everyone insults Cale for writing these reviews. At least he's got the balls to write the review and put his head on the chopping block for his review. All you peons do is give him a bunch of shit for telling us that the movie sucks. If you don't like his review don't come here and piss and moan about it.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Dick Trickle on 7/21/2008 @ 4:24:02
You really have to wonder...
what kind of person, even one who agreed with the sentiment, could actively enjoy a review like this or feel enlightened by it. Are you impressed with your own writing, Matt?
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
MBI on 7/21/2008 @ 11:28:10
American Psycho
Brilliant review as always. Christian Bale shall forever be Patrick Bateman, as Dennis Hopper will be Frank Booth, and, as such, must be forgiven of all sins. "I like to dissect girls". Perhaps wooden, but always psychotic.
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Pat Bateman on 7/21/2008 @ 11:58:27
FUCKIN' A!
YOU DON'T PLAY BY ANYONE'S RULES! YOU'RE YOUR OWN MAN! THIS IS ONE RUTHLESS REVIEW, AMIRITE? lol
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
WordyGayJoke on 7/22/2008 @ 12:5:38
Can Cale enjoy anything?
Predictably, Cale takes no pleasure in anything that's been accepted in greater society. He's usually right, but more and more I'm getting the feeling that Cale's doing this just to feed on the inevitable negative reaction. Yeah, the first hour was badly paced, Eckhart was flat and the phone sonar was needlessly stupid, but c'mon, the pencil trick was damn funny. If Joker had killed kids, you'd want him to anally rape fetuses while pouring sugar into a gastank.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Sylus on 7/22/2008 @ 3:6:31
Tubby and the Haters
You go Cale ya fat load - though probably little fatter than the lurkers that leave comments. Ruthless remains my fav. movie website. Now, I must go slay some children to increase my celluloid street cred.
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
T-Ditty on 7/22/2008 @ 7:49:02
Sigh...
I've not seen the movie, so I have no comment on it, but the sad thing is, before I even clicked the link I pretty much knew exactly what Cale would say. He used to be entertaining, now he's just boringly predictable.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
DShiflet on 7/22/2008 @ 11:12:59
hjklh
"though he does use a coin like he watched No Country for Old Men too many times" no country for old men - 2007 Two-Face first appeared in a dc. comic in 1942. just sayin....
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
asshole on 7/22/2008 @ 7:25:30
Sad to be you Cale
Matt is the kind of guy that would find fault with a blow job from Jessica Alba. Unless the film is foreign, obscure, or made for $200 and hand job (but he'd prefer it be all three) he hates it.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Viking on 7/23/2008 @ 12:6:17
read, swallow, obey
no opposition... no dissent... you are free to do what we tell you.. there are WMDs in iraq.. the surge is working.. benefit scroungers are crippling society... lindsay lohan is newsworthy... to you people who have slated Cale's review.. do you react with zealous rage against the heretic to everything that contradicts the mass-broadcast accepted view?
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
eyeswideshut75 on 7/23/2008 @ 2:59:11
YES
this movie really blows. thank you for setting the record straight!
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Belgian Waffle on 7/23/2008 @ 4:2:19
No Surprise
I can't think of one Batman film that didn't give me cock rot. I can still hear the orgasmic cheering that greeted the Nicholson film that started this franchise fiasco and which put my arse to sleep easily within 10 minutes. Love him or hate him, Cale has integrity.
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
haunted panties on 7/24/2008 @ 5:36:12
Yeah, right....
"Issues of real-world importance deserve a serious forum, not exploitation at the hands of carnival barkers." Pompous hypocrite asshole. I'm sure that if some horrid 80's hair metal band did a song about those "issues or real-world importance" he would be writing eulogies to it.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
some guy on 7/25/2008 @ 7:42:06
No fucking way...
Did Cale seriously claim Two-Face was a rip-off of Anton Chigurh? I can't believe my eyes. Cale, pretend this is a fanboy's rant if you want, but that shows just how far you're reaching these days. This was the first time I've visited the site in about a month, and this is what you have to offer? I'll give you two stars because the first two paragraphs were really funny, but it got old after the second picture. Loved that bit about "vaguely threatening e-mails" though.
Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Squirrel on 7/27/2008 @ 10:53:38
needs more boobs
1. i liked the movie VERY much. 2. i love youre reviews - usually a different take on it. like now,talking about his voice,rather then talking about the movie itself etc.. 3. funny thing: the ones above thats ranting on how bad the review is..why did they even bother to read it then? 4. why am i ranting about people that rant on other people? 5. i need to get a blowjob by jessica alba. while she have a Eastwood voice. 6. or rather get a blowjob by Clint,while he is having a jessica alba voi
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Ass_king on 7/28/2008 @ 8:41:44
Wha
You whined: This is a pulp experience that goes on and on and on, with the tired assumption that length connotes depth, and somber tones -- and the occasional cackle -- inject relevance and insight into an adolescent’s approach to morality and ethics. Well, um, yeah...love how you conveniently forget this is a movie about a guy named fucking "Batman", skidmark.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Starfkker on 7/29/2008 @ 6:7:12
Partly True
there were times when the movie felt like it was simply crammed with too many things. thematically, the transitions each character shows aren't drawn out well enough. while the joker seems to be the only one who can break into a 3 dimensional, i think batman, gordon and harvey dent required each other to function as separate characters. but the movie was fun. and it had a serious tone. no campy shit or comic book movie typed humour to pull it down. i agree with parts of your review. just not all
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Demonata on 7/31/2008 @ 3:9:19
Pretty shitty.
This movie was alright without the hype, pretty shitty with. The people calling this "excellent" or "best movie of the year" clearly need to watch more movies....or at least better ones. The Joker was the only thing entertaining as everyone else was either satisfactory, or downright awful. Story was pretty lame and insulted my intelligence several times. With the exception of the Joker being slightly more kick-ass, it's essentially the same Nicholson-Keaton Batman the sheep have apparently forgo
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Dicknutz on 8/1/2008 @ 4:55:11
matt is a faggot
thanks matt for your faggot, biased, im-against-this-movie-cause-i-wanna-be-deemed-an-intellectual review. Now go back to masturbating to 4chan liek usual.
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
big~aids on 8/2/2008 @ 6:7:09
yeah that was great
I honestly don't understand how you can seriously review anything when you have such clearly biased opinions? I personally enjoyed the film. I thought it was great but it was a victim of its own hype. The score frequently drowned out key moments of dialogue (ANY idea what Gordons monologue at the end was? Answers on a postcard please) and after such a good opening scene I felt bored by the whole rachael/harvey, batman in china act. China thing didnt need to happen. Why couldn't they have just ni
Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Tom on 8/5/2008 @ 7:40:47
Was surprised...
After your '300' review, I thought you'd have found some even more noticeable parallels with the Bush administration in this movie. Wiretapping is touched upon, but it is portrayed as necessary to get the Joker. Same with the brutal interrogation...
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Bumble on 8/6/2008 @ 3:51:00
Nerd Nation
Without surprise, a movie as morally laughable as 'The Dark Knight' shoots to the top of imdb's top 250. The representation of the angst of the millions of terminally introverted comic book dorks, too scared to venture out of their parents basements, feeling "opressed" and sorry for themselves.
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Dick on 8/25/2008 @ 5:12:29
Wanna leave feedback on this review? Click here!
 
       
         


 

 
  A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M
N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
 

RUTHLESS T-SHIRTS
You want ‘em, we got ‘em

JOIN THE RUTHLESS FORUM!


"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." -- H.L. Mencken


The Quote Du Jour Archive.