The Dark Knight - Review

Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: C. Nolan and J. Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale/Heath Ledger
Runtime: 152 minutes

Ticket line ups and sell out crowds don't mean much to me in terms of how good a movie is. All line ups mean is that people are willing to line up to see the movie. That's it. Box office records, and revenue, don't have a thing to do with a movie's quality, at least in the first or second weekend.

So what makes people line up to see a flick?

Good question. If you knew the answer to that, you would be sitting in the biggest office Hollywood has to offer. There'd be starlets rubbing your back and lowly interns shining your shoes, as actors and agents take turns kissing your ring.

Nobody knows how to make people line up for a movie. Producers pour money into flicks in all kinds of ways: top notch screenwriter, award winning director, great cast, bestselling book to base the movie upon, and advertising out the ying yang. They put up billboards in Times Square and send their stars on the late night talk show tour. They plaster the internet, bus terminals, and subway stations with posters, and they beam commercials straight into your living room. And at the end of all their hard work, producers can do only one thing: pray.

They know better than anyone that there is no guarantee a film will do well. None whatsoever. Sometimes they get Star Wars returns. Others, Bonfire of the Vanities.

Why is that?

There's a lot of theories, but I like William Goldman's. He's a screenwriter that's had some big hits. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President's Men, The Princess Bride, Marathon Man, Misery. Though he wrote some duds, he wrote a lot of movies that people lined up to see. How did he do it?

Search him. Goldman's theory says there is one reason a movie succeeds: people want to see it. There is one reason a movie doesn't succeed: people don't want to see it. End of discussion.

There's no other explanation. Audiences are incredibly fickle, and there is no way to read their minds. That's why you see so many sequels. Producers have given up trying to shape the art and business of film, so they cash in when they can. If people line up to see Spider-Man, you'd better get ready for another decade of web slinging. James Bond? Same thing. Batman? Ditto. These are called "franchise movies," and producers will squeeze the life out of them before moving on to the next - hopeful - hit. And, speaking of James Bond, they will only move on once the franchise has crashed. Bond, to his credit, has yet to flop badly enough for the studios to call Her Majesty and tell the Queen that they will no longer need her Service.

Which brings us to Batman. See if this would make sense outside of the movie business:

Batman. 1989. A movie about how Bruce Wayne grows up, becomes Batman, and faces the Joker. The Joker dies.

Batman Returns. 1992. Batman comes back, fights two bad guys, plus a semi-bad Catwoman.

Batman Forever (apparently so, but not with Michael Keaton - he's replaced by Val Kilmer). 1995. Batman fights another two bad guys, and is joined by the Boy Wonder.

Batman and Robin. 1997. Kilmer is replaced by Clooney. Batman must again fight two villains, but he's now joined by Robin, and Batgirl.

And...thud. The franchise hits the dust until three years ago with Batman 5, which is miraculously called Batman Begins. In this movie, we learn how Bruce Wayne grows up to become Batman, and -- hey, wait a minute. Didn't we already see all of this?

Sure we did. But this is an extra-special re-telling. This one's darker, or more powerful, or more true to the Batman story. The story you saw before was okay, but all the hype was misplaced. This, the producers tell us, is the real Batman. Besides, it's not like the Joker's in it or anything...

So tonight I go to see The Dark Knight, the 2nd of the second Batman movies, where we meet...ta-da! The Joker.

Look, I'm all in favour of a good time. I liked The Dark Knight, and I thought Batman Begins was the best Batman movie of them all. But while we're cooing over these flicks, let's be real about Hollywood and our expectations of it.

We constantly tell Hollywood to give us fresh ideas and better movies. We yell "derivative" at the top of our voices, and feel cheated when we see the same old, same old. But who are we to complain when we sell out North American theatres for a chance to see a retread of a movie from 19 years ago? The message to Hollywood is clear: we want to see these movies, and we're only lying when we tell them to give us something new.

How can it be otherwise? Tonight's film shows that the same pattern is being repeated. The second movie needs two bad guys, one primary (the Joker), one secondary (which I won't give away). There's a damn good chance that Robin will show up in the next film (but not Christian Bale, if he follows Keaton's lead), plus two or more bad guys to keep the sub-plots rolling. Then we'll get another movie with a couple of bad guys that are only interesting if you've read the comic books. Finally, and mercifully, there will be one more film until the franchise goes cold. Then, once today's audience has procreated and raised their children to movie-going age, we'll be fed another dose of Batman Redux.

But, you're saying, what was The Dark Knight like? How was Heath Ledger? What's your deal and why don't you shut up?

Okay, fine. Tonight's film was good. Not bad, not great, but good. Like most sequels, Knight takes it for granted that you've seen the first one and know the lead character very well. Why is Wayne living in an apartment instead of a mansion? Why is the Batcave in the cellar of a building? Sorry. You should have re-run Batman Begins before coming into the theatre.

There's no real story to The Dark Knight. The Joker shows up, causes havoc, and Batman tries to save the day. That's pretty much it.

Heath Ledger does well as the Joker. Ledger was a damn fine actor, and it's a shame he died so young, but his Joker role is not worthy of an Oscar nod, as some have said. He does a good job with the character, but it is nothing that leaves a memorable impression.

The rest of the cast is fine. Aaron Eckhart is good as Harvey Dent. The three old timers, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman, are as steady as ever. Freeman and Caine aren't used much, but Oldman has a lot of screentime. Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is pretty much there for kidnap-bait. I did take issue with one 30 minute sequence of the film, where the characters go against type so badly that I was wondering what the hell the movie was doing. See if you can figure it out, because I can't.

The lack of story scared me. Batman Begins was so good in this regard, that I thought the second would follow up. Not to be. Comic book characters get short shrift in sequels, as if the first movie said all there was to say about them. That's why you need two or more bad guys, a bunch of new gadgets (like Knight's Batcycle), and a couple of sidekicks in later films: they prop up the lack of depth by throwing new tricks and characters into the mix. Spider-Man, to its credit, has avoided this cliche. As in the first series of Batman films, I think these cliches will eventually ruin this franchise, too.

But if what I am saying is true, why are people lining up around the corner to get into the theatre?

Search me. I guess people just want to see it.

Photos: Yahoo Movies