Just saw The Dark Knight today and I did like it, though I think I prefer the plot of Batman Begins more. In TDK it felt like Batman had too much screen time and Bruce had too little. To provide an example: in BB, when the villin shows up at the Wayne party, it is Bruce who takes care of matters and saves the people, while in TDK it is Batman who saves the day. To be fair, how the story was going it couldn't have happened any other way (Ra's al Ghul was after Wayve, the Joker was after Batman), but that is just it; Batman was the main character and I suppose I wanted Bruce to be that.
Having said that, the acting in this movie was largely brilliant. The more I think about Heath Ledger's performance, the more impressed I am. Walking out of the, I was actually sad because while a fine role, I didn't think it was as good as everyone said it was. However, then I began to think about it and I began to realize how wonderful of a job they did on the Joker. I think it was a brilliant move that they didn't give him an origin or a background; that would have actually taken away from him. He is chaos that came out of nothing. And to note, lies about how he got the scars were wonderful. I would have liked a few more moments like when he dropped Rachael or when he dressed up as a nurse (showing the "humorous" side of Joker, as it were), but I can't think of where they'd fit it in.
Aaron Eckhart's performance was on part with Ledgers, it seemed (though I think he also had an easier role). However, I think I would have preferred if they could have left him out of this movie and devoted an entire one to him; we see Two-Face a little too little for how wonderful of a performance it was (though at the same time, I wouldn't have wanted that element to be in a different movie if his "origin" would be changed). I always hated the craptacular court-disfigurement that Two-Face had in the comics; this was much more effective. Basically, it just felt like the screen was too crowded with both Ledger and Eckhart; I wanted to see the movie focus more on both, but there is only so much screen time available.
Maggie Gyllenhaal was... um... moving along.
Nah, just kidding. She did well with her role, but it was the role that was crap. I know the relationship between Rachael and Bruce was built up in Batman Begins, but this is not Batman Begins. That relationship needed to be developed here too. We didn't see anything that helped justify why Bruce was obsessed with her. Rachael and Harvey was better, but still, it looked like they were good friends, not lovers. And unfortunately, Rachael seemed to be in the movie almost entirely to serve as a MacGuffin; I didn't care at all that she was killed (well, probably killed -- this is a comic book movie, after all).
Gary Oldman is the perfect lovable old man. I mean Sirius-ly; he plays a wonderful James Gordan who serves as an emotional foothold in this movie, with the near absence of Bruce Wayne (he did the same in Batman Begins, but he wasn't so alone). He is the common man (who is hardly common), the viture of the average citizen. Now when I think of the character, I will always envission Oldman's portrayal (same with most the other characters in this movie, but hey).
I was very dubious about Michael Cane when I first saw him as Alfred, but he makes the role his own very well. Though Bruce's parents are dead, we still get to see his father, as it were, and unlike in some other takes on batman, Alfred stays his father (rather than being relegated to the butler position once Bruce comes of age). He has such little screen time, but Cane makes splendid use of it.
Lovely, and certainly one I plan to own (and if I can manage it, to see in IMAX; though around here those showings are sold out for another two weeks).
