My 2nd review ever!

Rating: 10/10 (24 July 2008)

I am one of those people who always read the "hated it." I have been reading the ones posted here on IMDb to see if any writers could convince me with their arguments that this movie was not as good as I thought. After 5 pages, no one has yet to convince me. What amuses me about most negative reviews, not only of this film, but others as well, is their authors resort to ad hominem fallacious logic. They call people who like the film "fanboys," "solipsistic" gamers, and, my personal favorite, "unintelligent." I want evidence, not name-calling. So, I have chosen to write my second review ever because I am unshaken in my conviction this film was great.
I will forgo the summary, there are hundreds of others posted if you need one.
First, the length. I never once looked at my watch, I never even went to the bathroom. I was engaged every minute. I cared about the characters, I tried to predict what would happen next, I even tried predicting the next villain - Catwoman? I did not expect action every second. Some people have called it bad editing, I consider it character-driven plot development.
Then the visuals. I thought the violence could have been heightened, but it would not have earned a PG-13. People thought it was too violent, but I would say not any more than Ironman or even The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I do not care if it was just Chicago. I admit, I love the Gotham created by Tim Burton, but very few films will ever meet the dark beauty that Burton creates in his films. Gotham, the physical city, was not as compelling as Gotham, the society. This is a film about people, the citizens were more important.
Which brings me to the theme and the characters. What would it take for me to do something illegal? A threat to my child? A threat to my spouse? A threat to my religion? I hope I will never be forced with the choice. Are there more good people than bad? These questions are explored by the film. They are not answered because those are things best left to the individual. A good piece of literature encourages the reader to ask questions about themselves and others - a good film requires the same of the viewer. I hate leaving a movie without questions.
I like this portrayal of The Batman. He seems more concerned the people of Gotham. Do not forget, he is a vigilante. He is already a criminal. He has psychological problems stemming from his parents' deaths. Why would he want Gotham to consider him a hero? Would it not create more chaos to have the citizens idolizing a person who will not even reveal his identity? District attorneys, like Harvey Dent, police officers, like Gordon, fire and rescue workers, and teachers are the people citizens should celebrate because a total loss of faith in our system creates chaos. Although I prefer Bale's voice to whatever that was they used in the film, I think Bale is an excellent choice. A little crazy, a lot reserved, good-looking and athletic is how I always pictured Batman. Even though I loved the Burton Batman, I never could buy Keaton as Batman.
Even the majority of skeptics agree, the Joker was handled well. He is even scarier because we do not know his origin - a purposeful choice made by Nolan and Ledger. If I did not know who was playing the Joker, I would not have guessed. It was not because of the make-up, the character was so different from anything I had seen him in before. It takes talent to completely change who you are. The Joker did seem to plan a little well for someone devoted to chaos, but chaos and chance are not exactly the same thing, are they? His goal was to create chaos. Chance belonged to Two-Face.
I was surprised that Two-Face was created and destroyed so quickly in one film. I never really cared for Ekhardt as an actor. However, I thought his performance was okay and did not distract from the film. From the beginning, Harvey Dent never actually allowed chance into his life. His coin was two-headed. Even when things got scary in the courtroom, he seemed in control. He was in control and he demonstrated a tendency toward violence early in the film. He was driven mad by his loss of control over his life. Why is it unbelievable that he would become obsessed by chance? Is it not why many people turn away from religion? If everything is chance, there is no control? Why is it so hard to believe people would kill to regain control? Control drives many people: politicians, CEOs, policemen, killers, abusers and others. Despite the claim his motives were unbelievable, I know control is a real motivator.
Maggie Gyllenhall is a beautiful woman, but this film made her look old. I blame the stylists for that. She could have been given more to do in the film, she is a good actress. We did get to see Gordon quite a bit. Oldman is great, as usual. The supporting cast, as a whole, were excellent and moved the plot along nicely. Every character is important. Nothing about this film lacked purpose.
No film is perfect for EVERYone. My spouse finds The Godfather boring. No film is perfect for ANYone. I love The Godfather as much as anyone, but there are a couple scenes I think could be improved for clarity or cohesion. It does not change the fact that these films are good. I applaud this film's ability to make me think, to make me want to analyze the characters and figure out the questions left unanswered. The Dark Knight is in my top 10.