Remake is extremely difficult to call.
To be honest, I was not drawn to see this film, largely because I didn’t like Batman: The Beginning, but just last week I watched the whole saga, and so to speak, The Dark Knight to the heap.
The plot is not the worst, quite interesting. I won’t go into it, but after watching it, I had a question: why did the previous part at the end of the film talk about building the family house anew, when in this part Wayne lives in a penthouse? I think it's funny. The lack of a traditional Batman cave was disappointing. But apparently, Nolan decided to completely get rid of the old Batman, and make his own superhero, I can’t say that I’m happy.
It’s hard to say anything about Christopher Nolan. In principle, the film is not bad, but in a few places I would change the “phints” with the camera. I disagree with his vision of the comic, but it was shot powerfully, in my opinion, no worse than the film “The Prestige”.
I respect Hans Zimmer, but I don’t like the music in this movie. For me, there is not a topic that I would remember and scroll through sometimes in my head.
The special effects were on the level, although I don't like that aspect of the film. I think teenagers will like it.
I would like to write more about actors and their roles.
Christian Bale. Honestly, words are missing. If he looks more or less like Bruce Wayne, then this is how Batman is absolutely lost, apparently trying to show himself more masculine with a protruding chin and a strangely unnatural voice. Still, the best Batman for me is Michael Keaton, he has not yet been surpassed in the charm of Bruce Wayne and the masculinity of Batman.
Aaron Eckhart. The answer is mixed. In the role of Two-Face, I liked him, still it was much better than Tommy Lee Jones, who frankly borrowed the manner of playing from Jack Nicholson. On the other hand, he didn't look like District Attorney Harvey Dent to me. In this case, I am for Billy Dee Williams.
Michael Kane. I don't see him as good-natured Alfred. Sorry for the jargon, but I call him "like Alfred" and "the actor who plays Michael Gough, who plays Alfred." The phrases of this hero are written in the usual style for him, but Kane pronounces them with a completely different intonation, even with a different meaning. It turns out the opposite effect, personally it inspires me with some imbalance.
Maggie Gyllenhaal. I thought she was really weak, although I can’t say Katie Holmes looked much better in the role. The only thing that saved her character was the need in this story.
Gary Oldman. In principle, the actor is not bad, despite my personal dislike for him, played well. However, I didn’t like that his character was given so much screen time, I think it’s because of the “star”. In the role of Commissioner Gordon, I liked Pat Hingle better, although this is the most banal image of a kind of good-natured, soft Commissioner who shifts his duties to others.
Morgan Freeman. I played well, I can’t say anything more about him. I think we could do without his hero.
And finally, Heath Ledger. He surprised me, and I expected him to fail. He played very well, to “excellent”, perhaps a little short, but very, very. The Joker didn’t like him, I understand that he opened a new side of this hero, was a “butcher”, as it is written in some reviews, but as for me – he smiled a little bit. Let’s be honest, where does Ledger compete with the actor who has been considered a classic for many years, Jack Nicholson? Let the fans of Heath forgive me.
A couple of paragraphs from myself.
First, timekeeping. The film runs for 152 minutes, almost 2.5 hours. Of course, I understand that movies that are less than 90 minutes long are considered substandard, but The Dark Knight could have been enough. The fact that the film is long, you realize already at an hour of viewing, and with horror you realize that there are 1.5 times more left. That’s where the first Joker is really lacking, who would be able to extend the pleasure of watching until the end of the film with his liveliness, his “ridiculous” antics. But what is not there is not.
Second, a lot of talk. Perhaps this is just my subjective opinion, caused by timekeeping. I can’t say that this upset me, I’m more inclined to talk than to act. But there are other people who probably won’t be happy about this. I think there was too much morality.
Third, Batman. Or rather, his absence, since in the film it is catastrophically small. The comic book picture turned into an ordinary crime drama, and could easily do without the hero. The whole action is spun on Commissioner Gordon's confrontation with a dangerous psychopath. The bat itself appears only to apply brute force and show its intemperance and weakness in this situation. Is this the ideal of defending the city?
Fourth, I absolutely disagree that this movie is a remake of Batman. There are several reasons for this: the script, and therefore the plot, is completely different, not those actions, not those conversations – is this a repetition?; the film has Two-Face – why not call “The Dark Knight” a remake of the movie “Batman Forever”? The inconsistency is coming out. So this is not a remake, but a completely separate film.
Conclusion: The film is made on a level, although there is still some boredom during the viewing. There's also a big "but." The film completely departed from its original source, even for me it is a big drawback, and I do not have much respect for comics. Frankly liked only the play of Heath Ledger, but I don’t think that’s a reason to go to the cinema, except for the fans of this actor. I really don’t understand why so many people like this movie.
6 out of 10
Original
