Now that all the hype has died down, I thought I'd add my opinion on Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". After the financial and more importantly critical success of "Batman Begins", it was always going to be hard to equal and surpass it. The tragic death of Heath ledger, and his now iconic performance, has added a further dimension to the spin surrounding this film. It is also interesting how "The Dark Knight" has run a tabloid gauntlet, due to its violent and downbeat tone and the "12A" rating it was awarded by the BBFC, in the UK.

Well to start with, "The Dark Knight" maintains the look and feel of the first film, and avoids the Gothic vision of Gotham city that Tim Burton created. There is a distinct lack of stylisation from this genre offering. Although the violence is not excessively explicit, the is a tangible air of menace and unpleasantness. The nature of violence and the theme of the thin veneer of civilisation are explored in depth. For a genre piece, this film is quite cerebral. Crime and punishment and other weighty issues are discussed and the director refuses to paint a traditional picture of right and wrong, black and white.

The action set pieces are well handled but not to over the top. The fight choreography is good but not too incredible. But as this is an "A" list franchise, Warner Bros. were always going to make whatever resources were required available. So the production is well conceived and executed. It is the screenplay that drives this film and there are some very good aspects to it. But, it has already been noted that there are possibly one dilemma too many and that the focus on the Joker, is at the expense of Batman's character development.

Heath Ledger's performance is exceptional. This cannot be denied. His mannerisms, the delivery of his lines and his make-up which is very subtle, make this a radically different personification of Batman's nemesis, from that of Jack Nicholson. I enjoyed the way he had multiple explanations for how he acquired his facial disfigurement. I also found the way he would swallow and smack his lips whilst delivering his lines very plausible, due to his facial injuries. The films screenplay sensibly avoided an excess of explanation and back story relating to the Joker, maintaining his enigma.

Gary Oldmans performance deserves attention as Commissioner Gordon. The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard avoids the pitfall of melodrama and underscores the film very well. But at two and a half hours this film is a little indulgent and there could well have been a tighter cut made. I get the impression that the initial assembly print may have been even longer. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine seem to have a disproportionate amount of material throughout the running time, being less involved as the film progresses.

Finally, this sort of movie attracts what I call "the occasional film viewer". The hype and the broad appeal of the franchise means that a wider audience will end up seeing "The Dark Knight" in the cinema. Now, by my personal standards this is not a gratuitously violent film. It has a very downbeat and sombre tone and the main protagonists commit acts of violence. It is not graphically displayed but more implied. The general atmosphere is intense and there is a little more realism in this comic adaptation than in "Iron Man" for example. But as usual, a section of the community has not adequately researched the film or read the BBFC guidance and have thus been offended or shocked. This is simply a parental failure and not a classification one.

"The Dark Knight" despite some shortcomings is still streets ahead of the competition. There is a literary level and depth not often seen in these sort of films. It therefore is worth viewing by genre fans and the casual viewer of quality cinema. Just remember that because a film has a specific rating does not necessarily mean it is the exclusively aimed at that demographic.

XoD.