The Dark Knight - A Serious Entry
Okay, someone needs to say it.
The Dark Knight wasn't all that great of a film.
Everyone on this site seems so obsessed with this movie; I do not understand why.
Yes, it was entertaining and had some nice cerebral elements which are rare in popcorn flicks, but there was nothing truly groundbreaking in the feature, and nothing very soul-searching either. It presented a nice amalgamation of techniques, both filmic and storytelling, developed by other people and other films. It is a product of a well-honed Hollywood studio; it is entertainment; it succeeds at what it is. What it is, however, does nothing new, reaches for no unconquered heights, and strives for no new artistic echelons. It's a fun film and it's a visually exciting film, but not a great film.
Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger, and Morgan Freeman gave good performances; the rest were forgettable. Michael Caine was a self-parody and Christian Bale was excruciatingly wooden (a shame, since he is actually not a terrible actor - I recommend The Prestige for anyone wishing to see a good performance by him). Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance, to the point of hagiography. This is absurd. It was, as I stated previously, a good performance, but let us face simple facts: Acting crazy is the second-easiest thing to do in the acting world (the easiest being 'acting angry'). Mr. Ledger did a superb job acting crazy, enough to literally chill, but it was ultimately not a truly impressive role. To be perfectly frank, Eckhart's was the best acting in the film.
I enjoyed The Dark Knight a lot. But it is not a masterpiece of cinema.
24 Comments
Recommended Comments