I saw "Dark Knight" last Wednesday night, the 9 pm showing at the IMAX with my daughter. There was a long line of ticket holders waiting to get in; I stood there about 50 minutes myself and the theater was already more than half full when I passed through the door. While in line, I chatted with a nice couple from Chicago (held my place in line while I went to get popcorn), and I ended up giving them a couple of comp passes to SDC even though they're Cubs fans.
The movie was awesome on the IMAX screen, and even though it was shot in 35mm, it still filled over 70% of the screen. We enjoyed the film immensely. I didn't really notice the length because the action kept me occupied and my mind from wandering. I go to see a movie as an escape, so as long as it keeps my attention, I don't worry too much about character development. They just have to be believable or at least credible, not deep. If I want great character development, I read a book. That's not to say that movies cannot achieve it. I just don't expect it in a movie of this type.
I thought the performances of both the leads were pretty good. In comparing the two however, I have to say that it is so much easier for the "bad" guy to deliver an intriguing performance than it is for the "good" guy. There's so much more material to work with, and the fascination with what makes the evil guy tick is so much more intense. What can make a good guy interesting however is seeing him attempt to keep an "evil side" under lock and key. So, I appreciated both performances.
That being said, I was extremely annoyed by Heath Ledger's performance. It wasn't original by any means. I saw Jack Nicholson in every line delivery, every mannerism, right down to the lip-smacking. Very disappointing. All I had heard was how great Heath Ledger was, so this was a big let-down.
But, being able to put that aside, I really enjoyed the film and would recommend it to a friend.
