Not Exactly Citizen Kane

Rating: 8/10 (3 September 2008)

The Dark Knight is a very good movie, and a very entertaining one. It's a film that leaves you feeling totally satisfied. But later, when you actually *think* about it, you may begin to wonder what you've actually seen.
To be sure, the film has a number of major strengths. The sense of gritty realism is probably it's greatest asset. This is the superhero as a real-world phenomenon. The Batman of The Dark Knight is no more fantastic than, say, the James Bond of Casino Royale. (There's just one entirely needless bit of sci-fi - the whole thing with the cell-phone 'sonar' imaging. The film would be stronger without it.) Heath Ledger's performance is another big plus... though we shouldn't forget that Ledger is abetted by some very strong writing. It's a crowd-pleasing *part*, and we should be careful to spread the credit to all involved. I think Aaron Eckhart deserves mention as well; he's both likable and credible as the real square-jawed hero of the film.
On the other hand, the film has some sizable (though not crippling) flaws.
For starters, the story is relentlessly linear. In fact, there's barely a story at all. Nutjob Joker seeks to destroy crusading District Attorney Harvey Dent. That's about it. (Batman himself is almost incidental... which is not a bad thing.) Characterization is thin, to say the least. The Joker offers some hints at a back-story, but it's vague, self-contradictory and very, very limited. All the other roles are easily summed up in a single phrase. We've forgotten by now just why Bruce Wayne is so dedicated to fighting crime; it's taken for granted. And we never get much of a clue as to what makes Dent so fearlessly committed. Other characters simply go where the storyline demands. All this gives the film a breathless, streamlined velocity. But we need to admit that it ain't exactly Shakespeare... nor even Stan Lee.
Scenically, the film is certainly impressive... especially if you see it in IMAX. (Although the constant shifts between IMAX and regular widescreen are a bit distracting.) One crucial visual element that really doesn't work, though, is Batman's costume. Despite an upgrade early in the film, it always seems stiff, cumbersome and unappealing. At one point, I was hauntingly reminded of Darth Vader. This Batman moves more like Iron Man than like Sam Raimi's spandex Spider-Man, or Ben Affleck's red-leather Daredevil.
Finally, there's Christian Bale. He's much better here than in the dismal Batman Begins, and particularly good as the arrogant rich-boy Bruce Wayne. But he still doesn't bring much to the moderately important role of *Batman*. Physically, he gives off no feeling of strength; you never really believe he's a guy who could be punching it out with crowds of crooks every night. (Compare Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, or Matt Damon in the Bourne films; these guys have the Olympic physique a superhero would need.) When called upon to speak from behind the mask, Bale rasps unpleasantly, and his lips curl in a particularly ugly way. Admittedly, this Batman isn't intended to be *likable* (again, a good thing)... but a greater actor would have made him compellingly dark and brooding, rather than simply harsh and antisocial.
All this may be nitpicking, but considering the hundreds of 10/10 ratings posted so far, I think a dose of reality is called for. The Dark Knight is an excellent film, no question... but not quite a work of diamond-like perfection. Let's appreciate it for what it is, rather than for what our enthusiasm would make it to be. Personally, I give it a solid 8/10, and reserve the perfect score for those perfect works of cinematic genius that do turn up every decade or so.