A Bowl of Stupid

Anyway, I'm back home in Bangkok.

I mentioned in a comment over at TK's place that one of the primary reasons I came back here (after getting a decent massage or 10) was to see the new Batman / Dark Knight movie.

I'm an admitted comic book/movie junkie; I think Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman are ALL very talented actors; and of the popular comics, the Batman comic (whose protagonist has no 'super powers' beyond being a multi-billionaire) is one that is most grounded in reality. Moreover, just about everyone I've read, spoken to, etc., has said the movie was absolutely the best comic movie they've ever seen.

Sounds promising, right?

Umm … yeah, not so much. It ain't all that.

I really don't get it. I saw the movie last night on the gihugent IMAX screen over at Siam Square, and while the cinematography was grande (which may be simply be explained by the 16 meter high screen), the rest of the movie was remarkably … dull.

Yes, the acting was decent, yes, Ledger portrayed Jack Nicholson the Joker very well, yes, the special effects were what we've all come to expect from big budget Hollywood films. But holy fuck people, come ON!! At the end of the day, it's just Blue Steel!!

They're just rehashing all the same ol' shit. A little bit of Sin City here, a bit of Batman Begins there, a sprinkling of Steven King there, then add in some Beetlejuice makeup and Spider Man-esque special effects for flavour — and boom, instant blockbuster.

Much has been said about how 'dark and sinister' this film is — which sets it apart from all the other comic book adaptions. But again … c'mon, it's BATMAN. The tone of this film owes more to Frank Miller — who single-handedly reintroduced Batman as the now familiar psychologically dark character — than to the present cast and crew. Indeed, Miller's portrayal of Batman as a dark and compulsive figure has dominated most later Batman projects to at least some degree, including the 1989 Batman film.

Moreover, critics said the same thing about the story's 'new, darker version' when disecting Batman Begins ("In "Batman Begins," director Christopher Nolan gets back to a deeper, darker vision of the Caped Crusader") — simply because they both followed the campy, money-driven silliness into which the earlier Batman films had devolved.

For me, the Dark Knight wasn't 'darker' and more sinister. it was simply longer and duller — proving that no matter no much 'mood' a movie tries to shove down your throat, they're still no replacing a solid script and honest, beleivable characters.

Granted, it was an 'okay' movie, but it doesn't hold a candle (no pun intended) to any one of a plethora of darker, more comprehensive 'dark' film noir adaptations — One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining, and the first Batman movie, to name just a few (and yes, there's a reason I chose all Nicholson films).

Hell, even Superman 3 had Richard Pryor in it. All I got for bad acting and funny faces in The Dark Knight was Maggie Gyllenhaal. On the bright side, at least she caught on fire, too.

Yeah, this turned more into a movie review than a simple rant. Sorry about that, from now on I'll leave that shit to the professionals — they can tell the difference between Blue Steel and Magnum (oh my, it's glorious).

Share This

Trackback URI | Comments RSS