A Thing About The Dark Knight (and superhero movies in general)

The Dark Knight is an excellent film. Everything about it is so well-crafted that it really does set a new benchmark for 'superhero' films. I don't think anyone with film sense can deny that one.

However, I saw the film for a second time a couple days ago. What I've noticed (even before TDK) is that -- for me -- superhero movies have very little re-watch value (superheroes of all shapes and sizes, and directors). The film is very good, but on a second viewing it has some lulls that, while important to the film, just seem to drag and drag until we get to the next scene with Heath Ledger (who was easily the best part of the film -- and not just from nostalgia). For instance, Batman's visit to Asia to capture the crime lord because Batman has no jurisdiction. Cool, and effective, but not near as exciting as the rest of the film.

In my original review I gave the film a 9.5/10. This was for two reasons: The first is that I try to reserve 10s for films that are undeniably perfect (classics, mostly). We'll say that The Godfather is a 10. A recent example of a 10 would be No Country for Old Men. The Departed while close, is a 9.5. But the second reason was that something just felt 'off.' I've thought this over for a long time, and the best I can come up with is, 'There is too much trying to be done in too short of a time.'

Chris Nolan (the director and co-writer) explained the two 'bad guy' situation the best. He explained how we have one antagonist, The Joker, who has no reason and no empathy for human life, and symbolizes complete chaos. And then we have Two-face/Harvey Dent, who symbolizes the rise and fall of one of Gotham's own heroes. And Batman must deal with all of those, as well as his personal issues. It's a great setup, and it works. But I feel the ~2.5 hour runtime is not sufficient to fulfill all of that. Harvey Dent needs more time. But more than that, Batman needs more time.

We know The Joker. We know how he plays, we know how he kills. We know Harvey Dent's story. What we're missing in this film is any feeling for Bruce Wayne himself. What Batman Begins did was give us a new, improved, human Batman that was not so much like the ridiculous cartoon that recent films have made him. He was a mortal with a past and an uncertain future. Here, in The Dark Knight, it feels like Bruce Wayne's story is pushed to the background to focus on Harvey Dent and The Joker. That is the primary flaw of the film.

And that is why I think the film should have either been longer, with more Bruce Wayne internal struggle, or shorter, without Two-face (though it would have been a completely different film, no doubt). But still, this is a great film, and one that will certainly be studied, if anything, for it's enormous box office success.

In conclusion, here is what I have to say: I asked my friend David which he liked better -- WALL-E or The Dark Knight. He said The Dark Knight. I commented on the re-watch value, and said I liked WALL-E more. But I needed to see each again to get a real opinion. Now that I've seen both of them twice, I can safely say I like WALL-E a lot more. Is it a better movie? Maybe, maybe not.

And for the record, last year David thought There Will Be Blood was a better film that No Country for Old Men (and liked TWBB more). I liked NCfOM and thought it was a better film. Neither of us are right or wrong, but if that helps you form an opinion, so be it. I'm finished.