It doesn’t contain any known actors (as can be divined from the ‘Starring: ‘ field above). At it’s time of release, the director wasn’t as frighteningly well known as he is today (I mean, Chris Nolan, did, after all, make The Dark Knight). It doesn’t have any high octane action, nor any real length. All that this movie has is a good story, an excellent script and lots of intrigue.
This is Nolan’s first full length movie (clocking in a really short 70 minutes), but apart from the fact that it lacks just a wee bit technically, you don’t ever feel that this is a newbie director. Even though it’s been shot on a shoestring budget, the cinematography is pretty stylish, with the footage being completely black and white. Infact, the emphasis, technically, seems to be on innovation to best utilize the funds, yet the movie doesn’t ever come across as a cheapskate impersonator.
The story revolves around Bill, a young wannabe writer (played rather competently by Jeremy Theobald), who, in order to develop his characters, follows people to observe their mannerisms. But one day, he runs into Cobb (Alex Haw), a rather sophisticated burgler, and things start to go awry for Bill as his he gets sucked into lies, deceit and murder. The twist at the end is pretty unexpected and really, it is only then that you realize just how much trouble Bill really is in.
Edited in typical Nolan ‘fractured timeline’ style, this voyeuristic movie packs in quite a punch. It is an intelligent thriller, utilizes all of its limited runtime quite well, and is generally, an amazing effort for a first timer working on a restricted budget.

Borrowing a line from Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins, and updating it a little, I’d say that “This is a movie you’ll never understand, and you always fear…what you don’t understand…”. But, having said that, I’ll also add that when you do understand this, it’ll turn out to be nothing more than a sleight of the hand, a common trick, a formulaic story wrapped in a lot of (distracting) fluff, to make it seem more interesting.
The original short story by Jonathan Nolan was novel and highly gripping, to say the least. But sadly, the film adaptation, in trying to stretch the story out, and thus fill the required 2 hours of runtime, loses the novelty. Along the way, you start feeling more than slightly tricked, and by the end, you’re really uninterested. The twist at the end, also doesn’t grip you, or make you jump in your seat the way normal Nolan endings do.
Guy Pearce goes about his role of Leonard Shelby, the guy who can’t make new memories, looking extremely lost. He just about appears in each scene, mutters his line, and then the director cuts to another scene, where Pearce is again seen muttering his lines. No, actually, not even muttering, but puking out. Like he’s just about remembering to say the lines. Like his heart’s not really in it. What could have been a great tragic character in the hands of someone more capable, just about segues into a bumbling fool.
The worst thing about the movie is its editing. People have raved and ranted about it, but frankly, to me, it was just gimmickry. It does nothing, but distract from the actual story. Alright, it’s a new approach, but seriously, the movie would have connected better if it would have been edited conventionally.
The best thing about the movie undeniably, is Joe Pantoliano (Baby’s Day Out). He just excels in the role of John Gammell, who, you are told in the very last scene, is an honest undercover cop. Trust me, and take that guy’s dialogues literally, and the movie will be clear as daylight. Joe just inhabits the role, and brings the right amount of warmth and deceit to the role. The way he plays the role, Gammell appears to be just a sleazy pimp trying to swindle Shelby, but it as only at the end that you realize that Gammell is actually one of the few good guys (if not the only one) in this twisted and convoluted tale.
This movie is actually one big lost opportunity. The director, in trying to befuddle the audience too much, loses control of the movie. The critics also hyped this movie too much, I think partly because they didn’t really understand the movie. They weren’t really looking carefully, because obviously, they “wanted to be fooled”. This movie really represents the absolute nadir of Nolan’s filmmaking, and thankfully, a guy of his obvious talent, went on to greater things (not just the Batman movies, but also The Prestige). Considering that his previous film (Following) and his recent films, have all been way better, this can only be considered as a momentary lapse of concentration, and not an alarming sign. Watch this one, only if you want to know what all the hype was about, and please, please don’t fall into the trap of doubting Gammell.

It wasn’t just the hype, but rather the confluence of such amazingly talented people that had me waiting for this flick like I haven’t ever waited before. I had such great expectations out of this movie, that good movies would have crumbled before them. And, that is exactly my point-this film isn’t just good, it’s ‘dark knight’ good, a classic. Right up there with the very best of cinema. This isn’t just a superhero movie, rather it’s a smartly packaged crime drama with enough twists and turns to make the head spin. But then, Chris Nolan, being the director he is, packages these extremely well in the 140 minute run time, even finding time for some really well choreographed action sequences. There is never a dull moment, never an implausible twist, and certainly no loopholes in the script.
The film starts of with a brilliantly conceived and staged bank robbery. The Joker and his goons, wearing clown masks, break into the mob’s bank. Through the robbery, we never get to see the Joker, only hearing about him from the other goons. As the robbery progresses, the sheer brilliance of the Joker’s plan starts to emerge. Playing on his goons’ fears and distrust for each other, the Joker manages to make of with all the money himself. It’s a theme repeated often in the film-the Joker is shown as the purveyor of anarchy, playing on others’ fears to his own advantage, or rather, pleasure. He isn’t “looking for anything logical” and just wants to “watch the world burn”. Heath Ledger doesn’t just play the character, he actually becomes the character. All the mannerisms and mood swings come naturely. Nothing is forced, nothing is put-on. Ledger disappears so completely into the role, that it’s hard to imagine him in any other role.
Bale plays Batman as a tragic and flawed hero. It’s clear from the very first scene that Batman is bleeding and has too much on his plate. Not only is he fighting off the mob, but also a horde of his imposters. The general public can’t decide whether Batman is the messiah Gotham needed, or just a common thug who should be locked up. The cops treat him like a criminal, with only Gordon seeing him for the man he is. With the introduction of the Joker and his anarchy, the debate becomes stronger, with the public blaming Batman for creating the Joker. While Begins focussed on the creation of Batman, this movie focusses on the struggles of being Batman. The personal sacrifices and hard decisions are beautifully protrayed in the movie, with the ending taking the cake, and justifying the movie’s title. By the end, Batman isn’t just a vigilante in a costume, he becomes something else, something much more heroic.
Eckhart excels in the role of Harvey Dent, the courageous new Gotham DA. He is the ‘official’ version of Batman, someone who has vowed to clean the streets of Gotham while working within the framework of the law. His arrival even prompts Bruce Wayne to consider hanging up his boots and start leading a normal life. But then again, things don’t go exactly according to ‘plan’, and Harvey ends up as the villainous, coin flipping Two-Face. How the transformation takes place is the actual crux of the movie, and thus, I’ll steer clear of it.
The supporting cast (if you can call them that) of Michael Caine (as the butler, Alfred), Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox, the Wayne Industry inventor) and Gary Oldman (as Lt. Jim Gordon, the only honest GCPD cop), all bring their A-game to the movie, instilling a never-before-seen earnestness to their roles. Maggie Gyllenhaal adds gravitas to the pivotal role of Rachel Dawes (which was played by Katie Holmes in Begins), the love interest of both, Dent and Wayne.
The film raises important social questions about the corrupting nature of power and vesting too much power in one individual, all within the framework of a superhero movie. The scale of the movie is epic, the action is better handled than in Begins, and generally, this is one of the better movies dished out by Hollywood. It’s so good, that the hall actually burst out into applause once or twice during the show I was in. This is one of the few films that entertain, and still have a shot at the Oscars, and for that, it’s really one to be seen!