5Q Movie Review: The Dark Knight

Q: Hey, what took you so long to see this?
A: Uh, well--hey, come on! I wanted to, but life got in the way. Give me a break, OK? A fairer question might be what took me so long to write about this, since I saw it over the holidays at my parents' house. But let's not ask that question.

Q: So does "The Dark Knight" live up to the hype?
A: This is going to sound like a cop-out, but I don't really know. I think I need another viewing to digest it and really think about it. One of the amazing things about the film is the ideas that are thrown out there. On one hand, it's surprising, almost exhilarating, to see a superhero movie be so much ABOUT something--several things, actually.

On the other hand, by straining to cover so much intellectual ground, I think the film loses some visceral ground. The movie brings some exciting sequences, but when it was all over, I still felt that "The Dark Knight" didn't deliver on the action as much as I would have liked. I also had a sense that, after all the speeches, I was being lectured at for a while--not advocacy-wise, but just generally lectured at, like I was watching a debate.

In short, I feel I need to see it again to really evaluate it, but for now I think it was a really good movie but just short of my expectations given the hype and the incredible box office and reviews.

Q: Well, does Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker live up to the hype?
A: Absolutely, it does. Ledger's performance will endure as a chilling portrait of unhinged evil. It's one of the best movie villains ever, partly because of the acting and partly because the film doesn't give him a backstory or motivations, and we never see him as a "normal being." Contrast this with, say, the bad guys in the "Spider-Man" movies, and you see how this character is so much more effective. Of course, "Dark Knight" is also more grim (it's amazing that a movie this relentlessly bleak could make so much money) than those flicks. Ledger's Joker is an essential piece of this dark movie, a genuinely disturbing presence.

Q: Is "The Dark Knight" better than "Batman Begins"? And will you be pumped for the third one?
A: In some ways, this sequel betters its predecessor. The fight scenes that are there are shot better, for one thing. and there aren't as many cutesy jokes cluttering up the dialogue. Ledger's Joker brings a whole new dimension to the proceedings, and as a secondary character, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent brings more depth than did Scarecrow.

But where does the franchise go from here? I can't help but think the story would have played out a lot differently were it known Ledger would not be available. It looks like a lot of potential was used up in this second installment. Not that Ledger's death is in any way a positive, but perhaps the closing of several avenues (not just Ledger, but other characters and ideas) will force the series to reinvent itself with another fresh take. As long as Christopher Nolan is in charge, I have no reason to think the next movie won't be as ambitious as the first two and I definitely want to see how it turns out.

Q: What's the deal with all the so-called political ideology? How does this comic book movie work as a metaphor for the dark times of the Bush Administration?
A: I know a lot of people said that at the time, but seeing it at the end of 2008 and trying to find some political content, I couldn't discern such a blatant theme. The themes I think are more philosophical, sociological, and psychological than political. I'm willing to listen to anyone who believes otherwise, but I think for every "anti-Bush" or "pro-Bush" aspect, one could come up with a counterargument.

For the record, I don't quite understand all of Batman's actions at the end, but I agree with most of what he did in the movie, and the citizens of Gotham were nuts for turning on him--one of the plot elements I find hard to take.