Really good. But people are getting carried away...

Rating: 7/10 (20 July 2008)

This movie is a mixed bag, which many people seem scared to admit, as if doing so would diminish the fantastic performance by the late Heath Ledger. While Ledger's performance is great (discussed later), the movie as a whole does not stand up to the caliber of his performance. Given how great a job Ledger did, this is not all that much of a criticism, but there are a few things that bog this movie down.
Firstly, and perhaps the pettiest criticism, the voice with which Christian Bale chooses to speak as Batman is a bit forced and hokey, which might not matter so much if every line out of his mouth didn't sound like a prophetic certainty. And the voice is quite a deliberate choice--- when Bale is portrayed as Bruce Wayne, his manner of speaking is more relaxed, but also more human. It feels, after a few scenes, as if Batman is almost parodying himself. The acting is somewhat stiff and rigid, and while this makes Batman seems a bit dull at times, it reinforces a degree of aloofness and coldness that is fitting for the character.
Maggie Glyenhall (I'm probably spelling that wrong...), who plays Rachel, is a fine actress, and does a good job, but her character is in the film almost entirely as a mere plot device, and she's not given much to work with. Admittedly, focusing on her character would have been more time in an already long film, but nonetheless, it felt as if the writers realized they needed some sort of female counterpart to all the male cast. She does well with what she's given, but in the end is pretty much just a damsel in distress.
The only other real criticism I have is that despite what the majority of reviews have tended to suggest, the dialogue is kind of weak in many places. Fair enough, the Joker gets the majority of choice lines, to which the characters around him simply seem stiff and too dense to say anything impressive. But the dialogue lacks any subtlety. We are told directly that 'So-and-so represents x, and so-and-so represents y, therefore, z', again and again. It's a nice little pseudo-intellectual insight which gets beaten to death. I wouldn't be so harsh on this subject, were there any other substance to ponder in the movie, other than 'Can a hero who does unheroic things still be a hero?'.
Harvey Dent is what 'The Dark Night' is really about, in many ways, and his transformation into 'Two-Face' . There have been quite a lot of complaints that the Harvey Dent storyline detracts from the Batman/Joker dynamic, and I understand this sort of gut reaction to preparing to sit through another superhero movie where somehow, more than one villain is supposed to make the film better. But the questionability of whether Dent is actually a 'villain' is what makes this story work (and is quite resolved by the end). I don't see how anyone who has actually seen this movie could call the Harvey Dent storyline 'filler'. It's the lynch-pin of the whole film.
And so. As for the Joker, and Heath Ledger's portrayal. It's pretty good. Not Oscar caliber, not the best acting ever committed to screen, and so radically different from Jack Nicholson's Joker that the comparisons are somewhat moot. As fantastic as Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was, the role is a difficult one to assess, for several reasons. The Joker is the most interesting villain Batman had to contend with. Before mention of TDK's production was out, there was buzz from the end of 'Batman Begins' that the Joker (at that time uncast) would be in the sequel. This is the same sort buzz that resulted from the news that Venom was going to be a part of Spiderman 3. The character of the Joker is emblazoned in the mind of any comic book reader as the finest portrayal of insanity and evil. The Joker is simply a fascinating character. Thus, with any decent actor, the plastic insanity of the Joker can be well molded (and Ledger was certainly more than a 'decent actor'). In addition, there is the matter of Ledger's death. How can anyone with any heart say 'that was a lousy last role?'--- luckily there is no reason to. But a certain sentimentality and desire to honor Ledger's last role seems to push people in the other direction, to glorify it as the best acting ever accomplished. It is a fantastic job; but a fantastic job for an action movie, wherein the bar is, admittedly, set a bit lower. The Joker makes this movie exciting and complex. Ledger did better than many would have expected. But let's not get carried away out of some desire to honor a person by praising their last role uncritically. The role is good enough that it, and the film, can bear a little criticism, can stand up to it and still be a really well-done action movie. In five, ten, or even fifteen years, how will less news-sensitive viewers see this movie? I think it will still be regarded as extremely good, and worth watching. But certainly not one of the ten best movies ever made. Enjoy it for what it is, and you will certainly enjoy it.