Of knights, dark and otherwise

So I saw "The Dark Knight" over the weekend. If you'll recall, this was a film I was somewhat dreading to see, as I felt there was no way it could live up to the hype that has built around it. I knew I'd come away disappointed.

Great googaly moogaly! This movie kicked my ass, took my name, then kicked me again for good measure. Yes, Heath Ledger stole the show as the Joker, and he was suitably deranged and psychotic. My big concern in the advanced reviews kept referencing the fact that he wasn't funny, that only he laughs at his jokes. Well, I felt that somewhat off-base. The Joker shouldn't be stand-up comedian funny, but rather so outrageously unhinged that you laugh and immediately feel guilty about it. The great "Laughing Fish" story from the comics in the 70s is a perfect case in point. The Joker should not be dour. Why so serious? Fortunately, my fears were unfounded. The Joker is funny, but not in the Jack Nicholson "Ha ha!" way. He probably wasn't funny enough, but there were several episodes of uncomfortable laughter in the theater, and that will do. I felt his falling off the building at the end was a direct nod to the '89 Burton movie, even though Batman saves him at the last second. But I have absolutely no idea how they can bring the character back--what actor could possibly step in to Heath Ledger's shoes without coming off as an awkward aping of a legendary performance.

It was great to see the Scarecrow have a cameo early in the film. That speaks wonders for their attention and respect for continuity.

Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon is great. Seriously, of all the things they've done well in this series, to finally see Gordon portrayed as a competent, honest cop is my favorite. Yes, Michael Cain's Alfred is excellent, but Alfred's always been handled decently in the various incarnations of Batman. Commissioner Gordon's been handled dreadfully across the board.

Two Face. Wow. What can I say? This movie really was about the rise and fall of Harvey Dent. And as has been said elsewhere, even though you know what's coming, you really hope against hope that it won't. And Aaron Eckhart really sold the transformation, both internally and externally. Nothing felt arbitrary--the changes flowed from the characters and events they experience, as opposed to imposed from without.

How much better was "The Dark Knight" than "Batman Begins" when not saddled by the lightweight presence of Katie Holms? I'm not a massive Maggie Gyllenhaal fan, but I thoroughly bough her in the role of Rachel Dawes. In the first movie, I wanted to ask Katie if it was past her bedtime whenever she was on screen.

Christian Bale, again, was quite good as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Can't say much more--Batman seems to get overshadowed by everyone else in these movies.

As for the plot itself, it was tight and complex. It's a great experience when a two-and-a-half hour movie feels half that length. This film didn't have twists and turns, it had corkscrews. Truthfully, it reminded me more of director Christopher Nolan's first film, the magnificently twisted "Memento" than it did "Batman Begins." And I mean that in a very, very good way.

So what's next? Geeze, I almost pity Nolan & co., because how are you going to follow up a $500 million juggernaut like this one? How can you possibly escalate from this? Yes, we'll get the Batcave next time, and Gordon will be commissioner the whole movie, but still. The Joker can come back, but it'd be suicide to try and reprise that role just one film removed from Ledger. The Scarecrow is a fun bad guy and I'd love to see him again, but no way can he carry a film by himself. Ra's al Ghul (aka Liam Neeson) may or may not return--depending on how literal Nolan wants to get with the "immortal" Ra's being a replaceable figurehead or actually go all the way with the Lazarus Pit from the comics. Nolan hasn't allowed any supernatural elements into the story yet, so the question remains unanswered. Talia al Ghul would be a very interesting addition to the series, whether Ra's comes back or not. The Catwoman is an obvious favorite, but I don't know if they want to introduce a new romance so soon after Rachel Dawes. Plus, Catwoman as a character may still be radioactive after that dreadful Halle Berry movie. The Penguin is an obvious choice, particularly with the disarray of organized crime in Gotham, but Nolan hasn't always gone for the obvious. Ditto with the Riddler (my personal fave Bat-villain, although I'm lukewarm to the Jim Carrey version). Bane could fit well into Nolan's vision, but that character--along with Mr. Freeze--are probably out of the question due to the stench on them from "Batman & Robin." Of all those mentioned above, I think the Penguin's the most likely. Were I a betting man, that's who I'd go with. Fortunately, I'm not a betting man, so I'll have to wait four years to see, just like everybody else.

Now Playing: Jerry Harrison Casual Gods