The Three-Weeks-Too-Late Movie Review

If you haven't seen Batman yet and you want to, for Pete's sake don't read this.

Alright, that got rid of him. For the rest of you, let me say that I know you don't need me to tell you whether or not The Dark Knight is a good movie. I even know that I'm probably not going to tell you anything you don't already know. But please understand that I must write this, if only so I don't inflict my enthusiasm solely and directly on my wife.

So last night I saw Batman, and, I don't know, maybe you've heard; it's awesome. Big news flash. So why am I bothering telling you (besides what we've already covered)? Yeah, it's what I do, but more than that...I don't think I've seen a movie like this before. The only thing I can compare it to is (sigh) The Matrix. Pity the poor Wachowski brothers...tis the fate of the groundbreakers to suffer such comparisons.

Batman doesn't quite shatter any special effects barrier the way The Matrix did...in 1999 we had never seen anything like what The Matrix gave us, and ten years later it still defines the way big budget special effects are supposed to look. By now we've seen it all and Batman doesn't have that much that's new, although an 18-wheel big rig flipping back over front on an IMAX screen is something every male human should see before he dies. When it comes to story, The Dark Knight measures up to the Matrix in plot complexity, suspense, twists and turns, and the final climax. It also brings almost as much to the table in terms of pop philosophy and dark existentialism, if that's your thing. The examinations of good and evil, the ethics of telling the truth or lying to protect, the goodness in human nature, and what motivates a hero or a villain, these are nothing new for superhero movies, particularly in the last two years. But in this film they aren't soundbites, or filler between the action, or fabricated questions with an obvious right answer. There's some deep stuff here if you want it. This was also true of The Matrix, of course.

But what Batman has that the Matrix didn't is, in a word, acting. Or in perhaps a better word, pedigree.

We have Christian Bale giving us a very interesting take on the antihero. He was not born to play Batman, but at times he's so compelling he makes you believe for a second that he was. Of course, we have Heath Ledger's hugely celebrated performance, which I'll just have to come back to. There's also Aaron Eckhart, flawless as bad guy #2. The Matrix could almost keep pace with that...great work by Lawrence Fishburne and Hugh Jackman, and you've got Keanu Reeves being not horrible. But where Dark Knight kicks ass is the second tier. Matrix: nice work by Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss. Batman: Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman...three guys who could act circles around you in their sleep.

But Heath. Ah, the Joker. I've been walking around for months telling anybody who'll listen that the real challenge of playing the Joker would be to not be doing a Jack Nicholson impression. Heath didn't consider that his challenge. I apologize; I'm way off the mark. The challenge was to make the Joker a completely believable psychopath who could exist in our world rather than Gotham. The challenge was to scare the pants off you and make you laugh in the same scene. The challenge was to stand a bad guy up against Bale's unique Batman and have him not only measure up, but dominate every scene he's in. At the end of the movie, you think back on Nicholson's joker and you can only shrug and think, 'well, he tried, but...'

So if you're a fan of acting, there might not be a better movie this year than The Dark Knight. And that includes Oscar season in December. Heath Ledger is said to be a lock for an Oscar nomination, and while that's almost certainly more likely because of his unexpected death shortly after filming, his performance really is deserving notwithstanding. It's just that he probably wouldn't have made the cut.

But it's not just the late Mr. Ledger. I truly believe that this film has what it takes to be one of the five Best Picture nominees. Please understand that this isn't some Batman fanboy saying this. I watch the Oscars every year and I pay attention to what wins and what doesn't. I never thought I'd forgive them for 1994, when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, and 1997, when Titanic beat L.A. Confidential, but last year they came a long way to redeeming themselves. Last year tells us that the Academy is ready to start giving statues, not just nominations, to the dark and interesting movies over the grand sweeping epics. And it's been five years now since Johnny Depp was nominated for playing a pirate in a summer blockbuster. Is it so hard to imagine hearing a sentence next February that begins, "The nominees for Best Picture are: Batman..."