Requiem for The Dark Knight pt. 1

This will be my final post about The Dark Knight, unless something crazy happens between now and the Oscars.

I saw the film again when it was re-released in theaters last weekend. The film holds up, even in its third viewing in a theater. The narrative is still compelling, the action sequences still thrill (esp. the 18-wheeler flipping over in the middle of Chicago’s LaSalle St.) and the acting is top-notch.

Could the film had been shorter? Sure. I agree that the film could have benefited from having 15 to 20 minutes shaved off. Are there slight plot holes with the film? Sure, as with nearly ANY film, esp. action flicks. Was Christian Bale’s voice affectation annoying? Not to me at first, but yes, it can grate after a few viewings, I admit. Do any of these things lessen the impact or the brilliance of the film? In my view, absolutely not!

I specifically want to address those people who have issues with TDK’s third act. David Carr, aka The New York Times’ Carpetbagger, has numerous times complained about the film’s final act, and eluded that the “cold and confusing” ending is the reason that Oscar voters failed to embrace the film. I disagree wholeheartedly. The third act is not only coherent and thoughtful, but the entire narrative is buoyed by it.