2 of 3

I think that's what I most love about The Dark Knight and Batman Begins: Nolan stays true to the established history of the Batman universe, but uses the characters and relationships to tell wholly original stories with real thematic weight. Nothing is trotted out just because its in the source material; everything serves the story. Case in point: Harvey Dent. He could have been just a gimmick or a reference point (like in Batman Forever). After all, many of us know Dent's story and fate. Nolan, however, interweaves that mythos in—almost without us noticing at first—to bring greater consequence to his story about the seductive power of unrestrained evil.

Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon

Some viewers may find The Dark Knight all together too heavy handed or too dark. On the other hand, many will call it the best superhero film yet. It's definitely in the discussion. At least after one viewing, I prefer Batman Begins only because I feel like it's a tighter, less flawed movie. But I can't be sure yet. There are several things I've been mulling over regarding The Dark Knight. I can't tell if they are minor flaws and plot holes—or just things I need subsequent viewings to pick up. (I saw the film on IMAX—which makes the film look majestic and gorgeous—but some theater sound issues caused me to miss some dialogue.)

It's a movie that has taken me a while to digest and process. There is an awful lot going on. In fact, the movie's chief problem may be that it's too ambitious. Nothing is overtly unneeded, but at some point Nolan could have trimmed the vision. The Joker sets up several demonstrations of humanity's inherent depravity; all are intriguing, but not all were needed. Likewise, Batman's newest weapon effectively shows that he's gone too far in this war, but bogs down the pace. Also, a section regarding Batman's first global adventure takes too much time for too little purpose. Because so much is crammed in, the film feels like it takes a few story shortcuts and conveniences that leave you scratching your head: "Um, what happened there?"

But story complexity is often exactly what is lacking in action films. Therefore, this crime epic should be applauded. It's a treat to see action filmmakers caring as much about the human element as the size of the explosions. It's refreshing for a fun genre film to have: (1) as many memorable conversations as action scenes, (2) a balance between big plot and personal depth (revealing more and more about what really makes Wayne tick), and (3) true surprises and innovations. Overall, the film displays utmost cinematic craftsmanship—from the score to the beautiful shots of Gotham City to a script that sticks with you for weeks.

At one point in The Dark Knight, Batman says, "Things were always going to get worse before they got better." In terms of Gotham's crime, that's true. In terms of this riveting franchise, the quality is staying pretty consistent.

Talk About It

1. The film sets up Bruce Wayne, the Dark Knight, and Harvey Dent, the White Knight, as foils. If Dent is the face of hope and the hero, what is it that Gotham needs Batman to be? There's much talk about Batman being "something more" than a hero? What does that mean?
   
2. Bruce Wayne creates a new technology that he says is the best way to watch Gotham's criminals. Lucius Fox says, "At what cost? This is too much power for one man." How far is too far when it means protecting lives? What parallels do you see here with post-9/11 security measures in the U.S.? What do you think Nolan was trying to say about the balance between security and privacy?
   
3. Do you believe, as the Joker attests, that all humans will drop their morals and codes when fear rips away the established order? Explain. What's the difference between believing all men are sinful, and believing they are truly depraved if only pushed? Is there a difference?
   

next page... |  2 of 3