I admit that Ledgers death heightens the anticipation of the film for many...sadly (not me). However, after seeing the film it's clear that Ledger is not the movie, he only adds to it..and I hope that Hilde recognizes that. There is so much right with TDK it would take too long to type. Being a Bond fan, I have no qualms giving such high praise to this film and am 100% behind Harmsway with his viewpoint. I won't get bent out of shape if a film outside of "Bondom" is just as good or better than Bond itself.
You hope I recognize what?
I was looking forward to this film late last year...BEFORE Heath's unfortunate, fatal and accidental overdose. I've been a big fan of the Caped Crusader since childhood and was hotly anticipating Ledger's Joker...PRIOR to the tragic occurrence. I also agree with Harmsway that this movie is more about Harvey Dent / Harvey Two Face and the story arc of that character than anyone else.
Further, I think Heath did great justice to the role and totally overshadows Nicholson's bloated, self-aggrandized portrayal of The Joker in 1989 (which I saw on opening day, FYI!). No contest there. And, yes, it's a good movie and the performances are great all around. I'm not disputing any of it. In fact, I can hardly wait to check it out on IMAX! I think it's an 8.5 with the potential of going higher.
But are we not supposed to point out the weaknesses/flaws? And if someone says that the action or acting in this movie is superior to the action or acting in, say, Casino Royale...are we just supposed to lie down and not legitimately defend our position? I purposely did not go into a more detailed level of constructive criticism because a lot of CBn-ers have yet to see it.
I'll tell you one thing, if you come to these forums suggesting this movie is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you better be able to handle the heat of scrutiny.
We know all about scrutiny here because every single James Bond movie ever made is held to the Nth degree of such scrutiny on CBn. Why should TDK escape the same level of critical analysis we impose on Dr No or FRWL or Thunderball or LALD or 'Spy or The Living Daylights or GoldenEye or Casino Royale?
I'll see The Dark Knight again soon. And, after everyone here on CBn (in England, especially) has seen it, then i'll be more specific in my analysis.
Right now I stand by what I said: The action in Casino Royale (at least the filming of the action and the clear portrayal of it) and acting by DC as James Bond is, i.m.o., a cut above the action in TDK and the acting by Bale or Ledger or Eckhart or Oldham. I'm taking specifically about discernable action and i'm talking specifically about Daniel Craig, not the "ensemble cast". I may even have an issue about the 'drama'...but I want to have another viewing or two.
Hope I come across as being more balanced.
PS
If you recall, I said that some (not all) of the action sequences in The Bourne Ultimatum suffered from an epelepsian overdose of shaky-cam. Later, others (some, not all) noted what I meant and even agreed with me. Now, with The Dark Knight, i'm saying that the bat-mobile and bat-pod/cycle sequence suffers (not in a massive way, but suffers none-the-less) from being less-than-descernable and is muddled in silhouettes and shadows - overly so - which 'cheats' the viewer in relation to, say, Casino Royale's two night time set pieces. [And, yes, I understand that it's "Batman"/"The DARK Knight"/'creature of the night', etc.] But that doesn't dismiss it from being held to a high level of scrutiny, film action wise.
