The Dark Knight is mid: a rant – Emi S
Accept it. It’s not that good. It’s a 3/5 at best. At best. Honestly, the more I talk about it the more annoyed it makes me that people idolise this film, thinking it’s the next Citizen Kane or something. Now, I’m not the greatest fan of superhero films by any stretch of the imagination, but I like to think I can still enjoy a good action story. However, Rotten Tomatoes’ 94% approval rating from 345 critics and IMDB’s 9/10 just seems unreasonable to me. Why is this film so loved when it is simply so mediocre?
A major issue is the film’s director, Christopher Nolan. Though he has had some films I have previously enjoyed (Inception, Interstellar, Memento), his direction and cinematography is just so incredibly dull in The Dark Knight – generic skyline shots in particular are increasingly overused throughout the film. Hans Zimmer’s score melds well with the establishing shots and is a nice addition, yet somehow it still feels a bit.. safe? Honestly, David Fincher just does it better; watching the grimy shots in Fight Club and Se7en bring a whole new experience to the table, which Nolan seems to be linking to in the cinematography, however appears to be never quite confident enough to pull it off. Though I will give him credit where it’s due: the introductory scene was very well-shot, with bright colour grading and interesting angles, yet for some reason this does not continue throughout the rest of the film, making it a tiresome watch.
Heath Ledger is this film’s one and only redeeming quality. And I mean only. His performance as the Joker is great: funny and unpredictable, with great line delivery. In fact, most people singularly remember this film for Ledger’s performance – Batman’s character was made obsolete and simply used as a vehicle to target and fuel the Joker’s antics.
This is where is really goes downhill.
Harvey Dent: by far, the most horrific part of the film. What were the screenwriters thinking with the pacing of Dent’s character arc? It is the most stupidly rushed and confusing decision I have ever seen made in what is supposed to be a big-budget Hollywood movie. His one-dimensional altruism remains unchanged over the majority of the film, until his *life-changing event* occurs and he completely takes on a whole new character, no semblance of the person he was before, cramming his already surface-level character arc into 10 minutes. Genuinely the most frustrating part of the film; the screenwriters had Batman, they had the Joker, so what the was the point in adding a third main character when they could have just fleshed out Bale’s character instead (as they did with the other two films in the trilogy)? Dent is such a frustrating character and makes me angry every time he’s on screen because he is such a futile attempt at creating a strong contender for the Joker – nothing about his character makes sense. Additionally, I kept forgetting I was watching a Batman film – Christian Bale is criminally underwritten and when he does show up, he spouts a few arrogant-sounding comments before leaving not to return for another 40 minutes. It seems as though Nolan got over-excited with his Disney twist villain arc and kept forgetting Bale existed, having to cram him into the film somehow so it could be advertised as a Batman film. Bin off those screenwriters.
It’s definitely not the best film in the world, but equally, it would be unfair to say it’s the worst – placing it firmly in the mid tier. All in all, I don’t care if you love this film, because I really, really, can’t for the life of me see why. Let’s just put it this way: you know a film is mid when you would consider rather watching Venom.
0 comments