Those words are spoken by Bruce Wayne’s butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), one of the few people in Gotham who know that the billionaire playboy is actually the vigilante hero Batman. He is explaining, by saying there essentially is no explanation, why the villainous Joker continues to defy their expectations. The Joker has plenty of dastardly schemes, but no grand plan. He is a master of chaos, but nothing holds mastery over him.
The Dark Knight, director/co-writer Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to Batman Begins is, without question, the best superhero film I’ve ever seen. But I feel like that is faint praise. This is the first “summer blockbuster” since Jaws, maybe, that is truly a film first and foremost. Yes, it is breaking box office records, and it will sell tons of popcorn and action figures, but as an artistic achievement it belongs on the same playing field as the best films this year has to offer.
A big part of the film’s success is owed to Heath Ledger’s already legendary performance as The Joker. Many have speculated that it will earn him a posthumous Best Supporting Actor nomination, or even a win, and right now it’s hard to imagine anybody topping his work. Just last year, Javier Bardem delivered a mesmerizing Oscar-winning performance in No Country for Old Men, creating a villain that will go down in movie history. Heath Ledger’s Joker would make Anton Chigurh wet his pants.
But Ledger’s performance aside, Nolan has done a spectacular job, crafting a dark morality tale that unfolds like a great crime film — it has more in common with The Untouchables than Spider-Man, or even Batman Begins. Crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is the white knight leading the charge against Gotham’s underworld, with Gary Oldman’s Lieutenant Gordon (in league with Batman) fighting battles in the shadows. Batman has always been an intriguing superhero because he is simply a man with a lot of nifty gadgets (I find Iron Man appealing for the same reason). Likewise, The Joker is just a man with a sick imagination and a talent for persuasion. And so the film plays out realistically, as hard-boiled and resonant as the great urban crime films of Scorsese, Coppola and Michael Mann — these are just crooks vs. crimefighters, only some of them happen to be wearing masks.
One minor quibble: the film’s third act feels a little rushed. This is a 2 1/2 hour film that races by and actually feels like it could and should be a bit longer. But that’s a small complaint, one I feel obligated to report while wearing my “critic” hat but nothing that keeps this from being far and away the best film I’ve seen so far this year.
Warning! MAJOR SPOILERS in the comments section below… read at your peril!
Meet Me In Montauk 
wow, high praise and it made number one on your list. Maybe Dad and I will go to see it after all.
This is the first movie I’ve been to in a while (we’ve seen lots of rentals, but haven’t made it to the theater much… ) and it did not disappoint. We saw it yesterday and I still find myself sitting at the computer just staring blankly at the screen thinking about it. I know I will have to see it again and hopefully I’ll get to experience the IMAX version.
Much has been said about Heath Ledger’s amazing performance and I was afraid the hype was going to lead to disappointment – I’m glad I was wrong! He was simply brilliant; and scary, hilarious, disturbing… When he died, I was so sad thinking of all that lost potential (remembering his beautiful performance in Brokeback Mountain), but I had no idea what was still in store with this film. It really is a tribute.
And I agree with you completely that this is a film first and then a blockbuster. There are so many layers and things to think about. I feel sort of haunted by it, but in a good way. I didn’t speak the whole way home from the theater. (Rare for me… ) 🙂
And I agree that the last part seemed a bit rushed. For me, the movie flew by (no pun intended) and I actually found myself looking at my watch hoping it wasn’t ending soon. Sadly, it was…
For me, it was great – everything a movie should be – entertaining, thought provoking, beautiful (odd choice of words, maybe, but it really was incredible to look at). I look forward to seeing this again to try to catch some of the nuances that one viewing couldn’t possibly allow.
P.S. By the way, I LOVE Christian Bale as Batman. He tops Michael Keaton for me, and I really enjoyed him (much more than Val Kilmer or George Clooney). He’s perfect for this role!
Blech! I hated it. I sort of expected to dislike it, but it far exceeded my expectations. The fact that this is Heath Ledger’s final performance makes me want to cry. As I left the theater, I had a strong urge to see a double-feature of Brokeback Mountain and Spiderman 2. The first to remind me of Heath’s best, most moving performance and the second to remind me how a film can explore the theme of sacrifice without completely giving up on being entertaining. I agree with Clay that this film must be viewed as a film first and foremost, for it fails entirely to deliver as either a summer blockbuster or a conventional superhero movie. While I can appreciate the work of many involved in making this movie, I have no desire to ever sit through a frame of it again. If I want to watch a morality tale, I’ll pop The Untouchables in the dvd player. Best film of the year? It’s not even the best superhero film of the year. Iron Man has that title hands down.
Wow, fascinating. Yours is the first negative reaction I’ve heard, and it’s a doozy!
I agree that this is atypical for a summer blockbuster, which makes it all the more interesting that it’s setting so many box office records. I find that encouraging, though… a sign that you don’t need empty spectacle and manufactured hype to pack theaters. It’s almost as if There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men were pulling in $158 million in a weekend.
I say almost, because this is absolutely a superhero movie. Conventional? Maybe not, but since when do we reward movies for being conventional, or penalize them for not being conventional? And I’m not a comic book fan, so I don’t know for sure, but I think this film strikes the tone of some of the most celebrated Batman comics. He is the dark knight, after all… it’s not like they’ve given this bleak treatment to Captain America.
Finally, I hardly think this being Ledger’s final performance is reason for tears. This will be remembered as an astonishing piece of work, will likely win him a ton of posthumous awards and solidifies him as one of the finest actors of his generation.
Well, I don’t want to go all spoiler here, in case those who intend to see the film have not yet done so. But I do think that Sam Raimi has managed to make unconventional superhero films in the Spider-Man series without offing Mary Jane!
Dana and I were also irked by the Joker’s claim to be a master of chaos, when his plans were the most intricately plotted of any in the film. In most cases, he needed two or three events to occur “just so” in order for his final payoff to occur. Of course, it always did, as he was a master planner, after all.
My reason for being sad that this was Heath’s final performance is that he should have won that truckload of awards for Brokeback Mountain. Yes, he was amazing in The Dark Knight; he was a talented actor. Still, I didn’t see anything in this performance (in terms of his talent) that I haven’t encountered in previous work done by Heath. This just seems like excess – another opportunity to heap too much praise/money on a film that doesn’t deserve it.
Well, Spider-Man’s girlfriend is killed in the comics (Gwen Stacey, not Mary Jane). Again, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to defy the conventions of a “typical” superhero film, especially when the vision is truer to the source material. I think that’s a decidedly good thing, and the main reason this film has been so well-received. As Rene Rodriguez wrote, it raises the bar for all of these films.
Alex and I were also amused by the resources at the Joker’s disposal. How exactly did he and his minions get all those barrels of oil in place without anybody noticing? But that’s a nitpick. And I don’t really see the contradiction of creating chaos through careful planning… chaos is his goal, not his method.
One of my favorite lines in the movie is his claim that “I’m just a dog chasing cars, I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” To get more spoilery (and I put a warning in the main post to beware the comments section)… when he switches the addresses and tells Batman he can save only Harvey or Rachel but not both, I don’t think he knows or cares which one he’ll pick. He just knows that Batman will show up in the wrong place.
I knew Heath Ledger was capable of a performance like this, but that doesn’t make it any less electrifying or powerful. I’m sure his death is raising the volume on the accolades, but if he were walking the red carpet of the premiere right now I imagine he’d still be getting a ton of Best Supporting Actor buzz. I agree he was absolutely worthy of a truckload of awards for Brokeback Mountain… and the fact that Ennis Del Mar and The Joker are the same person is nothing short of astounding.
Actually, I see quite a lot in common between Ennis and the Joker 🙂
As for the contradiction between careful planning and chaos, it’s his own statements that suggest such a contradiction. When he is taunting Harvey Dent in the hospital, he says that his job is to make chaos out of all the master planning done by Dent and his minions. As you point out, he is able to do all sorts of things he shouldn’t be able to do (fill two ferries with a ton of explosives, anyone?), which require lots of planning. One of the things I liked least about this film was the ending, and since we’re going all spoiler in this section, I may as well explain why. After the citizens (and criminals) of Gotham prove to be better people than the Joker has given them credit for being, Batman (who had faith in them all along) takes the fall because Gotham needs its white knight (Harvey Dent) and they need some “bad guy” to chase. Come on! They’ve just proven they’re far more capable of holding a more complex thought in their minds, yet they are now being treated like ignorant children who need to be coddled. I don’t buy it. I’m with Gordon’s kid – “but Batman didn’t do anything wrong.” Tell me you can’t put that kid up at the press conference and make the world of Gotham understand what went down. It was as though the Nolan brothers didn’t have a final act, so they thought it would look cool to have Batman, cape aflying, disappear into the “dark night.” Puhleeze.
But the master planning of Dent and Co. was in the interest of maintaining order… the opposite of the Joker’s intent. Sorry, I just don’t see a problem there, aside from the obvious logistic issues (which are par for the course in all these movies).
I don’t think the ferry experiment proved anything other than you can’t turn people into mass murderers just by putting their lives at stake (a comforting thought, to be sure). That’s a different thing than the corruption of the man who had become a symbol of the fight against tyranny. The loss of Dent’s soul would mean a loss of hope for the people of Gotham… sure they could understand how he could be driven to darkness, but that understanding would just fuel their resignation at a time when the balance between good and evil in Gotham is at a tipping point. I don’t think they’re condescending to the people of Gotham any more than Alfred is condescending to Bruce by burning Rachel’s letter.
My guess is the “final act” will come in the third film, and that will involve Batman getting back on Gotham’s good side. This is the Empire Strikes Back of the series. Hard to know how they’d top this villain, though.
Well, since we’re all “spoilered out” here anyway, don’t you think the next villain is going to be Catwoman? When Lucius made Bruce the new bat suit and he asked if it would keep him safe from dogs, Lucius replied that it would keep cats out. Hmmm… I really wouldn’t know how they could write a Catwoman story, or cast the part, for that matter, that would be at the same level of villainry and acting ability as Heath Ledger’s Joker.
I understand what Amy is saying, but I still loved the movie. (Sorry, Amy!) I am an avid supporter of the “willing suspension of disbelief” that this movie (and others of this genre) counts on from the audience. 🙂
Good catch on the “cat” comment. Although if they go that way, I think it would be extremely hard to match what Michelle Pfeiffer did with that role in Batman Returns. I guess some could have said the same about Jack Nicholson’s Joker, but that was a much more comic performance. Pfeiffer was funny, scary and sexy all at once.
I like Kerrie’s interpretation of that comment… very intriguing. Now that Rachel is theoretically dead (I’d still like a body for proof), Batman could use a new love interest/sworn enemy. Maybe Maggie Gyllenhaal will be reincarnated (and have used one of her nine lives) as Catwoman! I could see her pulling it off.
As for suspension of disbelief, I’m a major proponent of such a philosophy. I just want to be entertained by the movie that asks me to suspend my disbelief. I don’t mind buying that the intricate plots could be pulled off, I mind being asked to think that Bruce Wayne/Batman suddenly underestimates the citizens of Gothmam, when he was just moments before giving them the credit that they deserved. Besides, I don’t see why what Harvey became would need to be publicized. I think there’s got to be a third scenario. However, I do think showing what happened to Harvey would demonstrate the ultimate morality lesson and let everyone know what’s at stake.
By the way, I don’t think Alfred should have burned Rachel’s letter. What the hell was that?
As I wrote, I think there’s a difference between giving them credit for not killing each other and letting them think their leader died heroically to avoid destroying their sense of hope. I don’t see that as a contradiction in his character at all (the very existence of “The Batman” is due to his belief that the people of Gotham need to be protected).
As for the letter, I’m sure Alfred figured two of the three sides in that triangle are dead, so what’s the point in hurting Bruce more by revealing that Rachel no longer loved him?
Those two decisions are just about exact parallels (to keep up the geometry theme).
And I’ll throw this out there… who says we’re supposed to agree with either one?
Okay, I’ll chime in, because I love a good “debate,” although, in this case, I find myself in the usual Amy position (i.e. not being as polarized in opinion as to loving or hating a film).
Anyway, here’s my two cents: The look of the film was very good, as was the superb performance by Heath (I disagree with Amy, he deserves the accolades and a nomination). I did feel the film ran too long and I feel there was much room for editing as I think there were basically 2 different themes trying to be crammed into one film (Joker as mob leader, then Joker as just a pschyco perpetrator of chaos). I actually liked the latter theme better, because I found the mob stuff less original, less interesting, and less true to the “spirit” of the Joker.
As for the plot overall, I think many critics, and perhaps some fans (Clay :)) are letting the look of the film, the dark tone, and the great Ledger performance overshadow a fairly weak plot with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I didn’t really understand why Joker would particularly choose this time (over any other time) to ramp up the chaos to a level more than he had sinisterly been doing at any other point in the series. I agree with Clay’s “nitpick” about coordinating explosives and oil barrels, but would go further because it also bothered me how many “mentally challenged” people joker was able to get to work for him, not to mention the rather loose way he was able to get cops on his side. But okay, I’ll suspend the disbelief.
still, as Amy discussed, the ending was simply weak. Yes, Clay, I can see why Gotham needed to know its hero was a hero, but why did it also need to make Batman the villain? Clearly, the warehouse scene was contained and known to only a few (while Batman’s amazing saving of the hostages and stringing up the Joker was likely seen and known to far more). And, while they kept saying throughout the film that Batman was an outlaw and had done things he must answer for, I kept wondering why was he an outlaw? what did he do? certainly nothing in this movie. They made him sound like he was Hancock for god’s sake.
So, why not have the movie end that the DA was good, but since he’s dead, we can all feel better that Batman is watching over us (Yay!)? Now, I know, that doesn’t go with the dark theme of the comics or the movie, but I would have liked it a helluva lot better and I think it would have been a more consistent ending to the film.
So, at the end of the day, for me, this was a movie I appreciated, but didn’t really “enjoy” and I doubt I will ever have a desire to see it again. And, while I know that the “not wanting to see it again” argument shouldn’t take away from recognizing a great film (see There Will Be Blood), I have an expectation that I am going to “enjoy” a superhero film like Batman. I didn’t, because of the length and plot issues, so I give this one a B.
Nobody want to weigh in on the possibility that Rachel isn’t dead at all, but will, in fact, return as Catwoman?
I like the idea of Rachel as Catwoman simply because I like Maggie Gyllenhaal. I don’t know if it makes much sense, story-wise.
Does it make sense that Rachel died? Does it make sense that we never saw a body? Nooooo. So I think it makes perfect sense that she returns with eight lives left ready to take some revenge on those who harmed her precious Harvey Dent and Batman.
Dana makes some good points about the plot. I, too, found it funny how many minions the Joker was able to dredge up, especially considering his habit of killing them off — although his tendency to employ the insane helps explain that a bit. But I, too, am able to suspend disbelief on matters like that. At least his schemes were interesting, with devious moral twists, as opposed to the typical super-villain stuff: “I’ve created a machine that will melt the Earth!”
I don’t see two separate Joker stories, though… I felt like his “leading” the Mob was tied into his comment that “this town needs a better breed of criminal” — he wasn’t leading them so much as replacing them. And I believe he surfaced in Gotham shortly after Batman did (remember, it was his card that Batman found at the very end of Batman Begins). Wasn’t there some dialogue that suggested the existence of a Batman leads to the existence of a Joker?
As for Batman’s outlaw status, that’s because he’s a violent vigilante. He’s not a “Yay, it’s Batman!” kind of superhero. He comes out only at night, he strikes fear in the hearts of criminals and bystanders alike. He’s not the “friendly neighborhood” Batman. I can completely understand preferring the lighter tone of Spider-Man, but I wouldn’t call that a problem with this film (and I guess you weren’t… as you said, you appreciated the movie).
Well, actually, I was calling it a problem for the film. Yes, he is a different kind of darker vigilante hero, but, as was said in the film, he was a hero that Gotham was all to agreeable to welcoming because they needed him. While his methods may be unconventional, when has he shown himself to Gotham to not be on the “side of good” to get the bad guys? So again, my plot problem was not the need to make the DA a hero, it was the need to have the dichotomy of Batman (after all he had done) to be the villain.
Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.
Now that’s what I call entertainment!
This blog needs a better breed of commenter!
Can’t wait to see what plan you concoct in order to lure one.
Amy, I totally agree with your Rachel becoming Catwoman idea. I did have trouble believing that she was dead. They just left it with the explosions. I knew Gordon wasn’t dead because he still had to become the Commissioner, but they did the same thing with that. He got shot and then they moved on – as opposed to when the current Commissioner died and they had a big memorial, etc.
Anyway, Clay is right that it would be tough to follow what Michelle Pfeiffer did, but look what Heath Ledger did after Jack Nicholson’s Joker… I could totally see Maggie pulling it off – I think she’s great. And she has that little smirky thing going on. Cool idea.
Never would have thought of it if you hadn’t picked up on that cat comment 😉 If this is not what they intend to do, I suggest we swoop into the Nolan brothers’ next brainstorming session and set them straight 🙂
I think I’ll go see Mamma Mia! again.
Good idea, Mom. I’d love to go with you. Though I’m bringing ear plugs for when Pierce Brosnan bursts into song 🙂
This is my gift; this is my curse. Who am I? I am Spider-Man.
I copy and paste the following comment from Ned:
The Dark Knight is *really* one the best movies of the year, with an ‘Oscar IOU for Heath Ledger’?!? (btb, did you hear that the guy who played The Joker died this year? It’s true!)
I mean, what the fuck … the guy who made Memento made this dismal, leaden, cliched ball of gas?
Where ‘the’ Batman speaks like a constipated Nathan Explosion (Dethklok, baby!)?
Where Harvey Dent looks like half the Cryptkeeper or Ahnuld in Terminator 2 Electric Boogaloo (really, wouldn’t that eyeball dry out and pop in about 30 minutes, and wouldn’t sepsis take down the rest of his face)?
Where the Joker says he ‘chooses chaos’ and compares himself to a dog that wouldn’t know what to do when he catches the car he’s been chasing, yet clearly has planned 1000 intricate contraptions to all happen ‘just so’ and bring down Gotham City?
Where the line ‘That’s too much power for one man to have’ is uttered and the movie is not Malcolm X?
Where Batman pummels the Joker in the interrogation room — even breaks a window with his head — and the Joker doesn’t even bleed, much less fall down or stop talking (when a single Batman punch to anyone else in the movie instantly knocks them unconscious)?
Where Eric Roberts’ character is dropped from a building and breaks both legs, and then is next seen lightly hobbling with just a cane? (Also, Eric Roberts’ real face is scarier than Harvey Dent’s burned one.)
I could go on … and on and on, just like the movie does, but then we all lose.
As my wife put it: ‘You know, Space Chimps was a horrible movie also, but at least it was over in 75 minutes.’
Look, I *LIKE* dark movies — but this movie confuses being underlit to being *heavy, man*!! Personally, I enjoyed Heath Ledger’s scenery chewing — he was about the only thing worth watching in the entire movie, but if you take out all his scenes you’ve still got another 90 minutes of dismal (we left the theater calling it ‘The Dark & Boring Night’).
And this isn’t the hype’s fault — Batman is about the only cartoon guy I find interesting (and that’s almost entirely from 1980’s Batman books from Alan Moore and Frank Miller), but I wasn’t lining up at midnight to see this movie, or the last one. However, the critical acclaim on this thing has been nearly unanimous — ‘masterpiece!’, ‘brilliant!’, ‘Best. Superhero. Movie. EVER!!’ and it’s just baffling to me.
A pretty good review.
Perhaps there’s a separate blog entry to be written on what it’s like to be on the opposite side of a movie receiving universal acclaim. Reminds me of how I felt when In the Bedroom was getting so many accolades, or Mystic River or (on the other end of the spectrum) Napolean Dynamite.
I’m game, though I think it’s an extension of our “expectation” debate. When you know a film has been universally applauded, you expect it to be amazing. If it falters, you’re less likely to forgive it. The reverse is often equally true, which leads to those “guilty pleasures,” films we’re not supposed to like but do.
Sure, although I’d heard the same universal acclaim of The Dark Knight and didn’t have that reaction.
That’s cause you’re batty.
Having just returned from a movie outing with the kids, I have to take issue with Anne’s comment, which she allowed me to share above. Space Chimps was far superior to The Dark Knight. Any movie that charms, moves and throws in a David Bowie joke that the kids can’t possibly get but lands squarely with their paying parents, is okay by me. I’d sit through it a dozen times before you could get me to go see that Batman nightmare again.