Dark Knight: a chronicle

[SeattleUte]

This may be the silliest thing I've ever read in the New Yorker (which is saying a lot):

"When Ledger wields a knife, he is thoroughly terrifying (do not, despite the PG-13 rating, bring the children), and, as you’re watching him, you can’t help wondering—in a response that admittedly lies outside film criticism—how badly he messed himself up in order to play the role this way. His performance is a heroic, unsettling final act: this young actor looked into the abyss."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic..._cinema_denby/

"This young actor looked into the abyss"? Good Lord. We're not talking about Keats or Poe or even Malcolm McDowell. We're talking about a Batman film, and Heath Ledger.

Ironically, Denby goes on to say that notwithstanding Ledger's virtuoso performance the film as a whole sucks.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This may be the silliest thing I've ever read in the New Yorker (which is saying a lot):

"When Ledger wields a knife, he is thoroughly terrifying (do not, despite the PG-13 rating, bring the children), and, as you’re watching him, you can’t help wondering—in a response that admittedly lies outside film criticism—how badly he messed himself up in order to play the role this way. His performance is a heroic, unsettling final act: this young actor looked into the abyss."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic..._cinema_denby/

"This young actor looked into the abyss"? Good Lord. We're not talking about Keats or Poe or even Malcolm McDowell. We're talking about a Batman film, and Heath Ledger.

Ironically, Denby goes on to say that notwithstanding Ledger's virtuoso performance the film as a whole sucks.

Saying it sucks might be taking it a stitch far. But I agree the jaunt out to Hong Kong was pointless, the death of Rachel seemed glossed over, and the movie had too many climaxes. When the end came it seemed truly ... well .... anti-climactic.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Saying it sucks might be taking it a stitch far. But I agree the jaunt out to Hong Kong was pointless, the death of Rachel seemed glossed over, and the movie had too many climaxes. When the end came it seemed truly ... well .... anti-climactic.

i thought the jaunt to Hong Kong was great. Took them out of their normal setting, quick and to the point.

i do agree the death of Rachel was not done well. We can't even figure out if he let her die on purpose or not. That's way too important of a point to not nail down better. And yes too long and too many climaxes. That said, extremely entertaining picture.

[DrumNFeather]

One guy in our showing had 3 kids there under 5.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

i thought the jaunt to Hong Kong was great. Took them out of their normal setting, quick and to the point.

It may have been fun and aesthetically pleasing, but it didn't really advance the plot much. Could've easily done without it and still told the story.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This may be the silliest thing I've ever read in the New Yorker (which is saying a lot):

"When Ledger wields a knife, he is thoroughly terrifying (do not, despite the PG-13 rating, bring the children), and, as you’re watching him, you can’t help wondering—in a response that admittedly lies outside film criticism—how badly he messed himself up in order to play the role this way. His performance is a heroic, unsettling final act: this young actor looked into the abyss."

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic..._cinema_denby/

"This young actor looked into the abyss"? Good Lord. We're not talking about Keats or Poe or even Malcolm McDowell. We're talking about a Batman film, and Heath Ledger.

Ironically, Denby goes on to say that notwithstanding Ledger's virtuoso performance the film as a whole sucks.

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. He's a great villian. But he's more of a fun, cool villian not someone that's going to give you nightmares.