Friday, July 25, 2008

The Dark Knight

I've held off talking about The Dark Knight, mostly because I don't really have anything more to add to the conversation. You might've heard it's brilliant, and has knocked over ten straight box office records like bowling pins. This is all true.

In post-flick conversation, Vik brought up a harrowing notion: this movie is impossible to follow. I'm sure the WB execs are clutching their stomachs with one hand while they pop champagne with the other.

Because it's impossible that a movie this successful will not have a sequel. But this picture is so good, it's already turned up to 11. And Heath is gone. How do you top that, to give the audience even more than the last one? How do you find actors willing to take on that thankless task?

It's a catch-22. But I think I have an idea.

What if they get all of the people who have played Batman in the past to return, but this time as villains? It'll be Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and West versus Bale.

2 comments:

Steve said...

This one stands up with High Fidelity as a movie that's all about Chicago.

In the first one, they at least pretended it was Gotham with some CGI. This time, they threw up their hands and said "Take him down to Cicero!"

Bad ass.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. I spent the whole movie thinking, "Oh, cool, they shot a scene there." Lower Wacker, the tunnels under the Daley Plaza, the Chicago River bridges, etc... fun stuff.

I saw it again. Still love it, in some ways love it even more... The scene between the Joker and Rachel Dawes at the party is about as brilliant as brilliant gets.

I also starting seeing little plot holes and dangling threads, but nothing major -- small enough that I didn't catch anything the first time I saw it. Fuck, I came out of that theater thinking, "THAT'S how it's done, man!" It's such an amazing engine of a story that I'm not gonna fault it for the small stuff.