THE DARK KNIGHT: ALMOST PERFECT. Well, I finally broke down and saw THE DARK KNIGHT last night. As those of you who know me will attest, I am never affected by hype -- or, indeed, what critics OR others who have seen the film have to say when forming my opinion of a movie. All those things are helpful but the only criteria I use is the movie itself; what I'm seeing up there on the screen. All that Oscar buzz surrounding Heath Ledger's performance . . . well, that wouldn't colour my viewing of the movie. After all, CHARIOTS OF FIRE and FORREST GUMP both won Best Picture Oscars and look what crap THEY are. In addition, I have several friends who saw THE DARK KNIGHT before I did. Several of them said it was the greatest "super hero" movie ever made, a perfect 10; others have said the movie was OK and only shined when Ledger was on the screen. Having seen the movie myself, I can say that neither opinion is my own. THE DARK KNIGHT is a very, very good movie (even when Ledger is not on screen); however, it could have been even better. Here's why.

Heath Ledger is indeed wonderful in the movie. Superlative, in fact. It was not, as some would have you believe, the greatest and most mind-blowing acting ever committed to film -- as some lookyloos would have it. Is all the Oscar buzz about him justified? Well, that's a hard question to answer. After all, it depends on all the other performances that happened this year. One might ask whether half of the Oscar nominees we see every year are EVER justified. Or the winners, for that matter. I mean, I hate to keep going back to the obvious but does anybody . . . ANYBODY . . . really think Marisa Tomei deserved a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for MY COUSIN VINNY, fer goshsakes? Even Tomei herself? So having said that, yes I believe Heath Ledger should definitely be nominated. We won't know if he should win until we see all the other nominees next year, now will we? And while Ledger is indeed probably the best thing in the movie, he could have been better. And I don't attribute this to the actor himself but more to the director Christopher Nolan. Strangely, while Ledger's performance is essentially flawless, The Joker never really comes across as "threatening"; this despite the many despicable and violent things he does in the movie. I can only attribute this to the director or the editing (and probably both). I am no big fan of the first Tim Burton BATMAN but two comparable scenes appearing in both films (the Joker menacing Batman's squeeze). However, while Jack Nicholson's Joker does convey a strong, seat-squirming threat towards Kim Basinger, Ledger doesn't convey much threat at all -- even when he's holding a knife across Maggie Gyllenhall's mouth. Odd. Like I said, I can't really find anything in Ledger's performance to explain the absence of threat because he SHOULD be very threatening. So it must be how the director shot the scene or how it was blocked. But having said this very minor complaint, I much much MUCH prefer Ledger's Joker to the miscast martinet of Jack Nicholson.

Now, about the aforementioned Maggie Gyllenhall. She is, in my humble, the weakest performance in the film. The actress appears much of the time to be walking through the part; as if a superhero movie was somehow beneath her. She strangely lacks charisma and screen presence and (I can't believe I'm actually writing this) is less successful than Katie Holmes (whom I found perfectly adequate in BATMAN BEGINS). This is shocking. And while I'm apparently getting all my niggling little problems with the movie out of the way first, I also was slightly disappointed in Christian Bale's performance. The actor, who carried BATMAN BEGINS so confidently on his shoulders, is almost invisible here. His scenes as Bruce Wayne are perfectly fine but it's when he climbs into that bat suit that he seems to disappear; he seems unable to project himself through the costume and out of the movie screen. This owes something to the persistent use of the Michael Keaton "bat voice" -- you know, the raspy whisper which existed solely to give Michael Keaton some sense of weight -- and has been slavishly and unnecessarily carried through every other actor's performance as The Dark Knight. This vocal device should have been dropped when Keaton left the role. But here it is still. . . making the character of Batman appear to be like a little boy trying to appearing threatening to a bully in a schoolyard. Bale's got the goods; why can't they just let him show it without hamstringing the actor with gruff whispered dialogue. I was also quite disappointed with the "blink and you'll miss it" inclusion of Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow (who doesn't even appear in costume). The character is simply too good to throw away in one scene and should have been saved for a later FULL movie appearance.

Now all these problems are pretty minor and they are the only faults I can find in a movie which is simply one of the best of its genre ever made. Of course, it's no GHOST RIDER but what is!?! (You do realize I'm kidding here with that last statement, right?) Before seeing BATMAN BEGINS, I was very wary having heard that Christian Bale doesn't appear as Batman until two-thirds of the movie has passed. Normally, the main problem with these superhero movies is that they spend too much time with the civilian angle/setting up the pre-costumed hero. This is usually tedious and dull. But BATMAN BEGINS avoided that pitfall and made itself, in my mind, the best Batman film so far. But THE DARK KNIGHT surpasses it. Thankfully, there is no attempt to waste time providing an "origin" story for the Joker. That would indeed be a stupid thing to do because, since 1940, the Joker of the comic books has never had a definitive origin story. We still, after all these years, don't know his story or who he really is and they'd better keep it that way. The character works much better without a pat origin. This is nicely carried over into THE DARK KNIGHT when Ledger tells about 3 different versions of how he got his facial scars; all of them obvious lies. The perfect way to go.

The action is nicely paced throughout from the excellent opening bank robbery (Hi there, Sully!!!!) to the multiple chaotic Joker shenanigans. Chaotic is the word as Heath Ledger even speaks a line saying that he is an agent of Chaos. This Joker is not Professor Moriarty; he doesn't sit at the center of a vast web of criminal conspiracy. He works for Chaos and flies by the seat of his purple pants. Then we have the special effects which are quite wonderful; they serve the story and don't call flashy attention to themselves. Particular kudos go to the Two-Face SPX which are superb and, for the first time EVER, truly look like the comic book villain. This brings us to the fine performance of Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Eckhart looks, for much of the movie, like he's the star and he plays the part with authority, verve and charisma to spare. What a screen presence! The fact that his Harvey Dent is such a strong character throughout the movie, standing up for what he feels is right, and such a human, well rounded character as portrayed by Eckhart, makes his inevitable fall all the more tragic when it finally occurs. I really, really, really hope he's back for the sequel. And this time out, Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon is MUCH better than his rather inadequate and mannered performance in BATMAN BEGINS. Oldman seems to be taking things a lot more seriously this go 'round and his Lt Gordon is now a welcome presence in the franchise. Michael Caine as Alfred is Michael Caine. I'm still not buying him in the role but I suppose he's OK. There's not much he can do with the part (which is barely written at all). Morgan Freeman isn't given that much to do either but he comes across with more humanity in a more well-rounded character scene in which Lucius Fox threatens to quit when Batman takes some questionable ethical actions. It's also quite nice to see several great character actors popping up throughout the film: from the aforementioned Sully (William Fichtner from THE PERFECT STORM -- who was so good in THE DARK KNIGHT it's a shame he exits the movie so quickly) to the always-fun-when-he's-villainous Eric Roberts as a mob boss. Tommy "Tiny" Lister (immortal as "Deebo" from the movie FRIDAY) was a really nice surprise as a convict and even Anthony Michael Hall ("Chicks can't hold they smoke! That's what it is!") even makes a nice, if brief, appearance as a TV talk show host.

It is particularly gratifying to note that THE DARK KNIGHT is mercifully free of all silliness and "Batman TV show" humour which has ALWAYS creeped in to Batman movies up to the time of BATMAN BEGINS. None of that horseshit here which we were subjected to in the Tim Burton Batman movies and (God forbid) the ones that followed after. However, don't think there isn't some funny stuff here because there is. It just arises naturally and correctly from the events of the film and never appears stuck in or pasted on a scene. There are no tongues in cheeks but the film is not overly serious and staid either. Evidence of this can be found in the scene where the Joker makes a pencil disappear or when The Batman threatens Eric Roberts on a building ledge. The action sequences are done with a lot of skill and the film moves along with exemplary pacing. Really nice hardware on display as well: particularly the new and improved "bat cycle". DP Wally Pfister's cinematography is also REALLY nice to look at; particularly the frequent "high in the sky" shot which look magnificent on the big screen. All in all THE DARK KNIGHT is a fine achievement which comes oh-so-close to achieving perfection. Do I recommend it? Wholeheartedly. It's just lacking that little spark that would push it right over the top.