Bat to the Future
MORE On the Town
THE DARK KNIGHT
RUNNING TIME 152 minutes
WRITTEN BY Christopher and Jonathan Nolan
DIRECTED BY Christopher Nolan
STARRING Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Some folks take metaphysical pleasure from the New Batman Philosophy According to Christopher Nolan: that good and evil lurk side by side in everyone, including Batman. But in my opinion, every Batman movie is about only one thing: action hero (the caped crusader with wings) vs. bad guys (everyone else). Writer-director Nolan’s Batman Begins, with its surreal and mystical mumbo jumbo about playboy Bruce Wayne’s beginnings, remains the worst Batman movie I’ve ever seen, although the comic-book addicts disagree. The Dark Knight takes up where it left off, but if it’s a follow-up that introduces a comprehensive sociopath called the Joker, then how do you explain the fact that the Joker made his debut years ago as Jack Nicholson? It’s just one of the things that makes no sense, but hey-ho, since when did Batman and logic morph?
The Dark Knight is preposterous, unnecessary and a far, far cry from the old DC Comics of my youth created by Bob Kane. But before the hate mail pours in, let me confess I’m a fool for this stuff, and if “logic” is a word you cannot apply to this movie, neither is “boring.” Compared with the summer’s other action potboilers, it’s a Coney Island roller coaster ride with some of the rails missing. It begins with a bank robbery that ends with most of the villains dead and the bravest bank officer with a hand grenade in his mouth attached to a school bus. When the bus pulls away … well, zing goes the strings of his heart. This is the work of the Joker, an archfiend who suffers from rabies of the soul—and cherry-picks his victims at will from the populace of Gotham. While Batman (Christian Bale is back—stronger, hunkier and braver than ever) tries to destroy organized crime in Gotham City, the Joker targets a living hell for the police lieutenant (Gary Oldman), cyberspace wizard Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), the new D.A. (Aaron Eckhart), his pretty assistant (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is the object of affection of both the D.A. and Batman, and last—but not least—Batman himself! What follows is two and a half hours of plunder-and-rescue missions where everyone plunders, and there’s always somebody new to rescue. Oddly, it’s the Joker’s movie all the way, and even with his Emmett Kelly whiteface and lipstick-smeared permanent smile slashed jaw to jaw by a razor blade, you know it’s Heath Ledger, hamming it up outrageously in his last film role. He chews a lot of scenery and swallows a lot of asbestos.
I liked it better when playboy Bruce Wayne lived in a dark, underground cave (with or without Robin). Now he’s in a penthouse with sunshine pouring through glass walls and breakfast served in bed by Michael Caine. Add sonar cell phones that blow up entire buildings, a Batman costume that is more than a rack item from the studio wardrobe department (now he actually sprouts bat wings and flies, like Bela Lugosi), more explosives sewn inside a human stomach, helicopters, SWAT teams, and three million citizens held hostage with the entire city set to blow up at the stroke of midnight while the Joker holds the detonator—and you know why Gotham City thinks Batman has crossed over to the dark side.
So let’s get back to Heath Ledger. The Joker is the worst kind of maniac (and the best kind to play) because he craves crime, punishment, anguish and brutality for its own sake, and with no name, no DNA, no labels in his clothes, no dental records, no computer matches, and no F.B.I. files, he can’t be caught. Mr. Ledger plays him like he’s aiming for the Oscar he lost for Brokeback Mountain, with a flat accent unlike any he’s used before, twisting his mouth in a wormy wiggle, licking the inside of his lower lip, doing lewd and lascivious things with his lickety-split tongue like a mental patient. He’s scary and crazy and sometimes very funny, especially in a red Bozo wig and a female nurse’s uniform. When he describes coming face to face with Batman as “what happens when an indestructible force meets an old immovable object,” I laughed aloud. Was I the only one who knew he was quoting the Johnny Mercer lyrics to “Something’s Gotta Give,” sung by Fred Astaire in Daddy Long Legs? The Joker is indestructible. Batman is incorruptible. And The Dark Knight is insurmountable fun.
rreed@observer.com
Upcoming Dance Performances
Dance Improv with Michelle Arieh-Lerer - Every Friday
92 Street Y, New York
Starting: 11/1/2008
Box Office:
Buy Tickets |
212.415.5500 Click here for more info >>
Then Our Why: Paintings and Poems Collaborative Paintings by George Schneeman and Ron Padgett
Douglas Dunn Studio, New York
Starting: 11/17/2008
Click here for more info >>
COMPLEXIONS CONTEMPORARY BALLET
The Joyce Theater, New York
Starting: 11/18/2008
Click here for more info >>
In response to Mr. Reed's Batman article:
I feel the need to point out that "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are not connected to the previous Batman movies - they do not share continuity. Which means that this movie is neither prequel nor sequel to 1989's Batman.
I thought everybody knew that by now but evidently not.
My second point is that if Mr. Reed had truly read Bob Kane's Batman comics, then Mr. Reed would be... let's see... between 70 to 80 years old. And he would know that the Joker, when first introduced in 1940, was a cold, calculating, humorless killer who played Gotham City like a kazoo. Except he would never have played a kazoo.
Mr. Reed would also know that Batman, as created by Bob Kane in 1939, was a vicious and brutal crimefighter as like as not to kill his enemies at the end of each month's adventure: a detective who had honed his mind and body to peak condition and who prowled the night looking for evildoers to pummel into gelatin.
However, I suspect that Mr. Reed is significantly younger than that, and he probably grew up with a Batman who more resembles Adam West than Chris Bale, Michael Keaton or, hell, even the unfortunate Val Kilmer.
However, I won't hold Mr. Reed's confusion against him; mostly because he still comes down on the side of The Dark Knight, which means that even if he doesn't know what he's talking about, he at least knows a good movie when he trips over one.
That's enough to let him off the hook.
Mr. Reed,
if you'll recall, "Batman Begins"(which, by the way, ended up on many film critics "Best Of 2005" lists) ends with Bruce and Alfred rebuilding Wayne Manor brick by brick. So while the reconstruciton is going on, Bruce moves into a penthouse at
Wayne Tower. This is based off of the Batman comics of the early 70's. It was during this time DC Comics returned Batman to his lone crime fighter/detective roots to fight slumping sales. Dick Grayson(Robin) was off to college and Bruce decides it's time to get closer to the enemy. So he and Alfred pack up
and move into the penthouse, located in the center of Gotham, which conveniently had a discared subway tunnel underneath. Ta-da! The new Batcave. This would be his base of operations until the early 80's when he returned to Wayne Manor. So look for Bruce and Alfred to head back to the big house and the cave in the third film from Mr. Nolan.
BTW, glad you enjoyed "The Dark Knight".
Mr. Gates: According to IMDb, Rex Reed will be 70 on Oct. 2.
Sexy Rexy is Seventy years old! Damn!
Might want to stick to "On Golden Pond" there, old timer. And remember, don't combine nitrates with beta-blockers.
Best.
I do not find it excusable that a FILM CRITIC does not know that these last two Batman films are a "series re-invent" and in no way have a tie-in to the Burton films. Apparently this guy is 70, so I guess senility has set in. If he finds a lack of logic in this film, I do not see how he can logically keep his job as a FILM CRITIC. Chris Nolan has created the most realistic "comic book" movies ever made.
I agree with the "On Golden Pond" comment. This critic is really out of sync with modern movies. A basic qualification for the job should be an empathy with audiences, audience tastes, and an understanding of how modern movies satisfy them. His almost glib dismissal of some of the most commercially, and critically successful movies of recent time, show that this critic may be past his 'use by' date.
No, this is not 'ageism.' I compare to Roger Ebert, who remains relevant because of his constantly open mind, and opinions.
Just to add to the factual corrections above:
Bob Kane almost certainly created none of the Batman comics you might have read as a kid. The only material he was really involved with was the very darkest incarnation of the character -- at the very beginning of his run in 1939-40. Even then, it was Bill Finger who actually wrote the early stories and, many feel, actually deserves credit for creating the character. But Bob Kane was savvy and worked out a deal to give himself sole credit and reap the financial rewards. From almost the very begining, however, Kane's supposed work was the product of ghost artists like Jerry Robinson. I would imagine that the happy-go-lucky Batman you remember so fondly was the 1950s version drawn by either Dick Sprang or Sheldon Moldoff -- regardless of the Bob Kane signature sprawling across the splash pages.
As much as I admire Sprang's brilliant cartooning, it's commonly understood that this period in Batman's history is an aberration. The character returned to his darker roots in the early 1970s and has been a "Dark Knight" ever since.
I undertand that comic book history is not the point of your column. But you were bold in your assertions. And you were wrong.
Isn't the retirement age 65?
Hilarious how Rex Reed doesn't understand that Nolan's Batman films have nothing to do with Burton's films. He says it makes no sense that Heath Ledger can play the Joker when Jack Nicholson played him before, but he doesn't even mention how Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Rachel Dawes, a role previously played by Katie Holmes. Is he a moron? You decide.
Is it too much to ask that a professional film critic at least make an ATTEMPT to pay attention the films he sees?
It's disappointing to think of how much "professionals" like this must get paid to produce egregiously uninformed opinions about the subject matter of which they are supposed to be "experts".
Rex, I beg you--do try to know what you're talking about before you trash a film that is being hailed as a masterpiece by people who know far more about the character and history of Batman than you do.
Rex Reed is a Southerner; the best writers in the USA were born below the Mason-Dixon Line. Most of us have a pinch of hillbilly and more parts Flannery O'Connor. I for one have been reading Rex Reed for a long time and I enjoy his reviews (I liked this one for The Dark Knight immensely) and his profiles. He has a Truman Capote sensibility. (Rex, I interviewed you 40 years ago for ATLANTA MAGAZINE and I find your work as interesting as ever.)
Google REX REED and read his body of works.
To imply that this movie follows the Nicholson/Keaton movie makes as much sense as saying it doesn't follow from the plot of the 'Batman' starring Adam West.
Rex, baby. Hang it up. You're lost.
Yeah no kidding Rex, the Nolan movies are not connected to the old Batman movies--seems like you need to brush up on your history before writing eh?
If you think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is part of Nolan's Batman Universe I completely understand why you think that BB is the worst Batman movie you have ever seen. Logic fails if you were wondering where Robin and Batgirl are at too. The Two-Face character was also in another Batman movie...why did you leave Tommy Lee Jones from the intro?
LOL!!!! The Joker was introduced in Michael Keaton's movie...but...this movie is set BEFORE that movie. Hence, the disconnect.
Hmmm...maybe someone should take his Alzheimer's meds before writing reviews????
How can a review be taken seriously when it starts off with such fundamentally incorrect information???
Both this film and "Batman Begins" are basic re-starts (read: "prequels") to the other "Batman" movies.
Perhaps I should write reviews for you?
Some things I'm shocked nobody else has pointed out. 1. I don't have a problem with critics disliking Begins, that's their prerogative but to unabashedly call it "the worst Batman movie I've ever seen" is ludicrous, unless he hasn't seen all of the Batman movies. I don't care who you are, you should be able to tell that Batman and Robin was a travesty compared to almost any movie. 2. Maybe I'm the only one bothered by this, but the concept of the unstoppable force and the immovable object did not begin with Johnny Mercer's song in Daddy Long Legs. Yes, you were the only to notice that he was quoting from that song because he was actually referring to a logical paradox that has been found for millenia.
Also, Ledger's Joker is the one from the original comics, and has nothing to do with previous films. Nolan's universe is seperate from all that came before it; this is a reboot of the franchise, and one that follows the original comics closely. The Joker in the original comic was a calculating, psychopathic, murderous clown with absolutely no back story, and no reason for what he does. This is the Joker in The Dark Knight. Do your research, Mr. Reed, before you spew a bunch of lies.
Please forgive my son,
I've tried to explain to him the concept of restarting a movie franchise, but he just drools uncontrollably while pounding his head on the table. I'll have to try beating the sense into him instead.
Take this as a lesson kids - please pay attention in school!
Okay children, let's settle down. I'm a huge Batman fan, but the guy liked the movie. There's a couple things he wasn't aware of. No reason to throw insults around like Neanderthals.
Regardless of wether of not the man liked the movie, he still should do a little bit of research on the films that are being reviewed.
I have a very very hard time believing the Batman comics from the 39-40 era were darker than Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. You mean to tell me that back then, Batman did nastier stuff than penetrating (with a weapon) the Joker in the Tunnel of Love and then rigging the corpse with explosives to mutilate pursuing police officers so he could make an escape in the chaos?
Why can't we see THAT turned into a batman movie? Also, he fights superman just to prove that he's the one guy who can whoop him. Classy. Not to mention that superman is Ronald Reagan's anti-communist cold war secret weapon...maybe if they redo it now he can find osama for us?
Actually....they're not prequels, either. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight play as though there were NEVER any Batman movies ever made in history. Not prequels/sequels or anything...all considereed to be completely original on their own.
People take Batman WWWAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too seriously.
I just want to know why no one is harping on the pronouncement "insurmountable fun."
Can fun be surmounted? Who would want to surmount it? According to Webster's 1984 New Riverside University Dictionary there are four distinct definitions of the word surmount: 1) to overcome, 2) to climb on top of, 3) to place something above/to be above, and 4) to exceed in amount. Which one did he mean?
Let's apply each of these meanings to Mr. Reed's phraseology:
Meaning 1) translation: The feelings of fun and pleasure you have while watching The Dark Knight are feelings that you will not be able to overcome. Connotation: even with years of therapy afterwords, you will still be persecuted by feelings of Batman-related happiness.
Meaning 2) translation: There is no way for you to climb on top of the fun you will have at the Batman movie. Connotation: even if you fly a plane over the movie theatre, you will still not be able to get above the altitude of your Dark-Knight-induced fun, because you apparently fail to recognize that fun is intangible and, therefore, has no Euclidian coordinates and, therefore you probably have no business flying a plane in the first place.
Meaning 3) translastion: to place something above/to be above: See Meaning 2) translation and connotation.
Meaning 4) translation: the amount of fun you will have at Batman cannot be exceeded. There are three connotations that come to mind. The first is that there is a definite limit as to how much fun you can actually have while watching this movie. The second is that, given all the things you could do during that 2.5 hour span of time, there is nothing that would bring you more pleasure than watching The Dark Knight--in other words, if you could go swimming at the beach, stroll around the Eiffel Tower, or go out on the best date of your life, all of that would pale in comparison to sitting in the dark, down 17 bucks, scarfing a supersize Coke and nachos combo while watching this movie. Which brings us to the third connotation: that, upon looking back on one's entire life, no matter if one won the lottery, got one's own book published, saw one's family prosper or otherwise achieved one's highest aspirations, one would have to say, in all honesty, "yeah, that stuff was okay, but, man...it just wasn't The Dark Knight."
Perhaps Mister Reed be content with "a lot of fun" or "a really good time."
I'm just saying.
I just want to know why no one is harping on the pronouncement "insurmountable fun."
Can fun be surmounted? Who would want to surmount it? According to Webster's 1984 New Riverside University Dictionary there are four distinct definitions of the word surmount: 1) to overcome, 2) to climb on top of, 3) to place something above/to be above, and 4) to exceed in amount. Which one did he mean?
Let's apply each of these meanings to Mr. Reed's phraseology:
Meaning 1) translation: The feelings of fun and pleasure you have while watching The Dark Knight are feelings that you will not be able to overcome. Connotation: even with years of therapy afterwords, you will still be persecuted by feelings of Batman-related happiness.
Meaning 2) translation: There is no way for you to climb on top of the fun you will have at the Batman movie. Connotation: even if you fly a plane over the movie theatre, you will still not be able to get above the altitude of your Dark-Knight-induced fun, because you apparently fail to recognize that fun is intangible and, therefore, has no Euclidian coordinates and, therefore you probably have no business flying a plane in the first place.
Meaning 3) translastion: to place something above/to be above: See Meaning 2) translation and connotation.
Meaning 4) translation: the amount of fun you will have at Batman cannot be exceeded. There are three connotations that come to mind. The first is that there is a definite limit as to how much fun you can actually have while watching this movie. The second is that, given all the things you could do during that 2.5 hour span of time, there is nothing that would bring you more pleasure than watching The Dark Knight--in other words, if you could go swimming at the beach, stroll around the Eiffel Tower, or go out on the best date of your life, all of that would pale in comparison to sitting in the dark, down 17 bucks, scarfing a supersize Coke and nachos combo while watching this movie. Which brings us to the third connotation: that, upon looking back on one's entire life, no matter if one won the lottery, got one's own book published, saw one's family prosper or otherwise achieved one's highest aspirations, one would have to say, in all honesty, "yeah, that stuff was okay, but, man...it just wasn't The Dark Knight."
Perhaps Mister Reed be content with "a lot of fun" or "a really good time."
I'm just saying.
Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins was a complete reboot of the Batman series. The events portrayed in Tim Burton and Joel Shumacher's Batman films have no relation to the events in the Nolan movies. How is it that everyone in the world but Rex Reed seems to have no trouble grasping this concept? Frankly it's shocking and hilarious in equal measure to think of Reed trying to sort out the continuity problems between two manifestly unrelated film series, and arriving at the conclusion that it's the film maker's fault as if everyone forgot that a Batman movie with The Joker in it already existed. I wonder if Reed made the same complaint in 1989, "Doesn't this Burton clown know that Ceasar Romero is the Joker?" Frankly, I don't think Reed is remotely equipped to review this movie, as he seems confused, out of touch (almost all of the references he makes in his review are pre-1950, and incapable of grasping the themes and ideas Nolan plays with. Reed seems unable to even recognize that Nolan uses Batman to explore some very serious ideas, and it's clear that a morally complex serious film that is also a Batman movie is not even thinkable (again, I imagine Reed confused during the screening, "But Batman is kid's stuff, what the hell is going on here?"). Whether Nolan and company are successful in their attempt to make a Batman movie that is also a serious film is a fair question (and the answer may be no), but Reed completely misses the boat as it becomes clear that he doesn't even recognize the film's pretensions to something serious. The Observer should have let a capable critic handle this movie and left Reed to cover Mama Mia, though I doubt that he is capable of giving a reasonable assessment of that film either.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
This dope doesn't know it's not a sequel????
How does he still have a job????
LOL @ this reviewer not knowing that Nolan's Dark Knight isn't connected to Burton's Batman. SERIOUSLY dude??? isn't that your JOB? pathetic.
a billionaire who fights crime while wearing a bat suit! preposterous!
I feel really embarrassed for Mr. Reed after reading this review. Perhaps he should employ an editor to go over his stuff before it is published? Othwise he should take a bow.
Rex Reed is great writer and a decent critic. If I had to guess, he knows that the Nolan films are part of a new franchise. It's more than likely that he is just mocking Hollywood for recycling its villains. But even if he did have it wrong, this shit-storm is still un-provoked. What really shocks me is the way most of you have responded. Considering that he enjoyed the film, shouldn't this army of virgin fanboys be attacking someone who hated it? I usually like Rex Reed, and I was hoping that he might side with me. What's sad about this web-whining is that the discussion is about Reed's fact checking, and not about how terrible the movie actually was. Was I the only one who enjoyed the first natural ending, but was irritated with the four or five that followed it? How about all those psuedo-philosophical monologues that were pretending to be dialogue? And, really, can anyone claim that Ledger's Joker redeemed Nolan's ham-handed commentary on the security state (Freeman's objection to Batman's sonar camera comes to mind).
All of that said, Reed is still acknowledged as one of the best critics in the business. He definitely doesn't need to the likes of me to defend him from the likes of you...