With the exception of Indiana Jones, I don’t think I’ve been looking forward to any movie this summer season more than this sequel to Batman Begins. I attended the 3:30pm Saturday showing at the Uptown Theater in Washington, DC with a couple of bloggers from Baltimore, Claude and Jomiwi, and Jomiwi’s friend Len. Here’s to prebuying tickets on Thursday: no waiting in line for us. We actually met up at Cleveland Park Bar & Grille (although Jomiwi and I wound up bumping into each other on the Cleveland Park Metro platform, both of us coming north on the Red Line) for drinks and food beforehand.
Here’s a warning: although this post is not going to be a blow-by-blow description of the plot, I’m probably going to mention some plot points. Actually, I’m pretty damn sure I will. So, unless you don’t care if you know what happens in the film, or you’ve already seen it, or you have no intention of seeing it and just have nothing else to read, be forewarned.
So, essentially: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS from this point on.
So I was actually a little disappointed by this film. I know that the sequel will never be as good as the first, and this is true to that formula. I’m still trying to figure out how to express my feelings towards this film logically and clearly. So here we go: there was an emotional anchor to Bruce Wayne in the first film — primarily, his father’s death. The stethascope, the musical cue, Alfred’s gentle jibe, “Why do we fall down, sir?”, first asked to young Bruce by his father. Now then we come to Rachel, and her passion for justice and laws. If Alfred is the film’s father figure for Bruce, the literal personification of a man gunned down outside an opera house, then Rachel is Bruce’s mother figure. His father installs the work-ethic, the drive to do something, his mother shapes how those impulses show themselves.
That dynamic just doesn’t seem to exist in this film: if that theme was the cohesive thread through the plot, this sequel is missing it. There are some forced attempts between Bruce and Rachel, but the attempt to set up a love-triangle between Bruce and Rachel and Harvey (with whom Rachel is seriously involved) just doesn’t work.
Let me just take a moment to say: I’m not a Katie Holmes hater. I don’t understand why she got into a relationship with Tom Cruise, I don’t care to understand, but while I like Maggie Gyllenhaal just fine, I do wish Katie Holmes had been brought back for this film. Not just for continuity purposes (although this film series might have a legacy of double-casting roles: read in an interview Nolan wanted to bring the Joker back, and Ledger’s death might not have ended that plan).
So if that dynamic is the primary reason I prefer the first film to this, here’s the second reason: the plot. The first film was tightly written, with every scene serving an absolute purpose towards crafting what, at the end, was not just a great superhero film, but was a great film period. Plot holes in Batman Begins? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Compare that to The Dark Knight, where often times, it seems like the school bus so often being used to rob banks or cart hostages away from a hospital could be driven right through them. I mean, seriously, at the end of the film Batman has Gordon blames Dent’s murderous rampage on him: um, hello? Why not on, I dunno, the Joker?
Here’s another reason I disliked the film: the gadgets. If there’s one thing I’ve found ridiculous about so many of the Batman films and TV shows, it’s the vast array of gadgets he has, seemingly one for every occasion and need, all conveniently on hand. Batman Begins didn’t go gadget-crazy, and played down those it had: the Tumbler, the memory-cloth, the bat-sonar-calling thing. Then, in this movie, we’ve got phones that can display virtual maps of a city, and the Tumbler, originally a military-bridging vehicle, suddenly gets an “escape motocycle” and remote-control functionality. The latter, straight out of 1989’s Batman, the former, totally ridiculous: what was the point of this device? Somehow I figure if the military was to cheap to spend $300k on the armor that becomes the Batman’s suit, they’re equally going to be opposed to spending the money to have a bridging vehicle sprout forth a motorcycle. But that might just be me.
I disliked Jim Gordon’s contrived death scene: one of the nice things about Batman Begins is that when you watched it a second time, you noticed scattered hints about what was coming up. There’s really none of that in this film: it’s almost like the writers just thought of interesting action sequences and then wrote a story around those.
If Batman Begins was Gotham City from the point of view of Bruce Wayne, the Dark Knight is Gotham City from no-one’s point of view. In a sense, there’s no cohesive narrative, no character who holds it down. It almost feels like there’s an attempt for the point-of-view to be of three people, Gotham’s Holy Trinity: Batman, Dent, Gordon, but it just doesn’t come across that way.
Also: what was the point of the Scarecrow showing up? Batman pops him in the face, ties him up with the Batman-impersonators, and leaves him be. Did Scarecrow get his mind sorted out, because he doesn’t seem insane anymore. Weirdest cameo ever, even if only to remind the audience that the whole Arkham crowd is running around.
Minor Nits: did Wayne Tower get a make over? Does Lucius Fox prefer a different board-room? What’s with the set changes?
Here’s what I did like:
I liked Rachel’s death, and the way it was played out. I was sure Batman was going after her, but no, he went for Dent. “Batman must make the hard choices, the no one else can,” Alfred reminds Bruce. Batman can even make the choices Bruce Wayne can’t. It’s just too bad this wasn’t explored further. It could’ve been the emotional anchor for this film, but it wasn’t.
There’s a character, a relatively minor character, who works as an independent accountant for Wayne Enterprises. He discovers Wayne’s secret and is about to reveal it on national TV when the Joker — who really likes Batman — declares that if this joker isn’t killed in sixty minutes, Joker’ll blow up a hospital. There’s a great little sequence where Wayne intervenes and saves the man’s life at the expense of his fancy Lamborghini, and the accountant realizes that a.) his guesswork is absolutely correct and b.) there’s no way in hell he’s not taking this secret willingly to his grave.
I liked the ferry sequence, big cheers for Tiny Lister — best known from The Fifth Element (for me, anyway) — who stole the scene to a rousing round of applause from the interactive audience at The Uptown. As contrived as the sequence was — honestly, I expected that the Joker had lied and the detonators were actually for the ferry they were on (i.e., the asshole civvy guy was going to press the button and blow his ferry to kingdom come, and, um, how exactly did the Joker get those bombs wired without anyone noticing?) — it worked. It really really did.
I liked the Joker. Well, I mean, no. I didn’t like the Joker. But I liked how he was portrayed. Heath Ledger is unrecognizable, although I don’t know I’d go so far as to say it’s his best performance to date as some have. It was enough to wipe Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker out of mind, and I think that was the biggest question of the film. I mentioned earlier that I’d read Nolan wanted to bring the Joker back. While recasting Rachel Dawes was a move I disagreed with, I don’t think Gyllenhaal did poorly in that role, but I also don’t see how another actor could then be expected to remove Ledger’s portrayal from the mass consciousness. I mean, hell, Nicholson’s Joker was twenty years ago about!
Summary:
Disappointing. Not a taunt work of action-drama storytelling, but a bit like a puzzle whacked out of alignment, sadly missing the unity and cohesiveness of its predecessor.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
You're fucked up. Get out of here.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
SEND ME TICKETS TO YOUR PLANET PLZ
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
The only thing I didn't fully agree with was the re-casting of Rachel as Gyllenhaal (not the "gorgeous" girl to be completely honest, plus Holme's and the guy who played Two-Face were already in a movie together so it would have been alright too.) and the whole character of Two-Face.
In my perfect world, Two-Face's character wouldn't be completely based on his physical appearance, but a mental issue, particularly Schizophrenia or something like that. With Two-Face added in, it felt like they stuffed two movies into one. They could have done a lot more sequels if they just spread it out.
Otherwise, a fantastic movie. The scope and scale of the movie was great, and the spit and polish was more than evident. But that's just me.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Fucker, i thought you meant the Cleveland, OH metroparks.... liked the movie. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808: In my perfect world, Two-Face's character wouldn't be completely based on his physical appearance, but a mental issue, particularly Schizophrenia or something like that. With Two-Face added in, it felt like they stuffed two movies into one. They could have done a lot more sequels if they just spread it out.
I agree. Two-Face was tacked on to this movie. It would have been better if Harvey had survived until the next film to become Two-Face.
Snay, while I agree with you about the Batmobile/Motorcycle and the over use of gadgets, I disagree with your opinions on Rachael and Alfred. I think you over-analyzed their roles, especially Rachael who isn't even a character in the comics. Also about Batman pinning the Two-Face's actions and death on the Joker, I'm glad he didn't do it. To me it's something I couldn't see Batman do, even if the Joker is a criminal. Plus I think it would have contradicted with the ferryboat scene with Batman saving Harvey Dent's legacy at the expense of "some criminal".
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Mars: So what if she's not a character in the comics, she's a character in the film, isn't she?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: I was sure Batman was going after her, but no, he went for Dent.
He thought he was going after Rachel, and he tells Gordon so. The Joker tricked him by switching the adresses.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Doesn't matter. Maggie Gyllenhaal needed to die. Cold perhaps, but if she was Katie Holmes, I would probably be more sympathetic.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Mim:
Noooooo ... he went for Dent. And he knew he went for Dent. That was the whole purpose of what Alfred said: Batman made the choices no one else could make, even the choices Bruce Wayne wouldn't make.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Then why did he tell Gordon he was going for Rachael?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Joker tricked him into going after Dent because he knew Rachel's death was the "push" Dent needed to get started on his descent into madness.
I really liked how in this movie we constantly saw that Joker, despite being a complete psychopath, had complex and carefully engineered plans that the heroes were variously able and unable to anticipate. I think the point of this movie was to take Batman Begins' premise that "criminals aren't complicated" and turn it on its head. In the first film good and evil were black and white, in this one the "good guys" have a harder time staying on their side.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If that's the case, then Batman can't make the tough calls after all.
And if all that was need for Rachel to die was for Dent to go crazy ... why'd Joker risk it? Why not just kill Rachel and not endanger Dent?
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
It's not that she died. It's that he thought he should have died in her place.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Besides, you're assuming that the Joker had some master plan that would have been shot to hell by Dent dying. He didn't. The Joker wanted chaos. If Dent dies, if Rachel dies, if both die, no matter what, he gets what he wants. He took advantage of Dent's survival and mutilation, but he didn't plan for it. And either way, he gets to screw with Batman's head, which is what he seems to enjoy most of all.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I liked it, though it seemed like several small short-movies combned together. Kinda like reading a trade paperback with five or six parts (that whole foray to Hong Kong would be an issue for example).
The actor that played Harvey Dent stole the movie- yeah Ledger and Bale, Oldman and Caine all gave their usual good showing, but that guy was really great in this. The actress that played rachel was a huge improvment over the last actress in that role, though nothing to look at).
One serious gripe: the cops never bother to take off the Joker's makeup?!? Seriously, that's lame as hell- they said they fingerprinted him (and got to match) but they dont bother to get a mug shot without his makeup? The first thing the cops would do is remove all that get-up and stick him in prisoner clothes.
Overall, a good flick- not the best movie ever as some would have you believe, but the best Batman movie certainly.
Iron Man and Hellboy 2 were both better in that they felt more like whole movies. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:The actress that played rachel was a huge improvment over the last actress in that role, though nothing to look at).
And???
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And...she was pretty good. FAR superior to the wooden Katie Holmes performance from the first movie.
Everyone in this movie was quite good.
Er....you're looking for me to critique her looks? Kinda looks like the "Maggie" character from Northern Exposure's less attractive sister.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I dunno...I'm not a huge Katie Holmes fan but I definitely felt that Gyllenhaal was the weakest link in this movie. She played the character as far too flirty and easygoing compared to Holmes' seriousness in Batman Begins.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Dude, she was pretty ugly. The entire time I was thinking, ""I soooo wouldn't jump off buildings for that girl."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ugly or not, I can picture her as an assistant D.A. and I really could not picture Katie Holmes as one. Maybe it was that Holmes seemed completely clueless about everything around her and not tough or experienced in any way. This new version of the character was competent in the courtroom, at least. Katie Holmes was the only thing that sucked about the first movie (and I dont buy an assistant D.A. in her early 20's either).
That silly "Bat Radar" via cell phone got old really damn quick, but it's a comic book, so I wont go into the implusability factors of that....also I doubt the bat-cycle ever moved over the speed limit: must be those big tires. Any ricer would've smoked the Bat. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: And...she was pretty good. FAR superior to the wooden Katie Holmes performance from the first movie.
Everyone in this movie was quite good.
Er....you're looking for me to critique her looks? Kinda looks like the "Maggie" character from Northern Exposure's less attractive sister.
No, I was just wondering why her looks needed to be commented on at all. It's been a pet peeve of mine before when people criticise a leading lady for not being pretty enough for their tastes. Gets on my goat. As you say, just from a realism POV, not many lawyers look even remotely attractive but you can forgive Hollywood if they can cast an actress who can actually act as well as look pretty. Not the case with Holmes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree- Her character's looks really dont matter to me- my comment is more a response to everyone calling her things like "ugly".....
I guess we all expect hollywood actresses to be stellar bueaties or something. Still, she's a big improvment over Holmes' "acting" (the sole gripe I had on the first film) With Katie Holmes, I think she was both waaay too young looking to be an asst. D.A. and acted that way as well (though that's possibly more of a directior thing).
In truth, I'd have preferred they just dropped her charcter, which I tough was weak, rather than replace the actress (which never works well- just ask Robin Curtis . This character that's such a pivital role in these two movies has nothing to do with the batman of the comics.
[ August 02, 2008, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well you don't need to worry about her being in the next film at least. To be far though, her character is quite unique, I don't think there's anyone in the comics they has quite the same perspective on Bruce Wayne as she had. She seamed to really see him for what he really is, somewhere between the dual identities and she's known and cared for him since childhood. Now in the last she was his light at the end of the tunnel, the one thing he could look at and say to himself "someday it will be over and I will have my normal life". Now that thread has been cut and he'll be more of the lonely figure we're used to. Which is good because they're showing the process, not the result.
Assuming they are doing a next one, I wonder if they'll defy convention and not give batman a love interest at all. From what I gather they're not interested in using Selina Kyle and I doubt they'll use Harley Quinn. It always felt false how in the other films (and I suppose a certain type of action film in general) the love interest would just drop in, get herself fallen in love with and find out his identity by the third act.
Perhaps they'll bring in Talia, one assumes the League of Assassins hasn't completely vanished.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...that whole "only she understood me" is the grim reaper of all female supporting characters in comics. No sooner do they learn the shocking secret than they croak. Seriously, whenever they do that, you can bet on a grisly end for the love-intrest of our agnst-ridden hero.
Forget the love-intrest angle.
I'd rather see them skip ahead a few years- let the time between movies match the time passed for characters- and they could just have a tough young-ish teen Robin present without all that "waste a movie on origin" nonsense. Everyone knows his background by now, so just get on with the current story (maybe a word or two in passing from Alfred about backstory for those in the know).
Hell, you could assemble a whole rogues gallery of nuts grouping to of the Bat- possibly starting with him captured- and have Batman's allies go after him.
Why follow the tired formula of the prior lame-ass batman movies wherein they introduce two or three villans per movie to be a menace, complete with sordid backstories?
I'd rather see a movie with no super-nuts and just have Batman (and Robin) do detective work to find a missing kid while beating down on street-scum.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:and they could just have a tough young-ish teen Robin present without all that "waste a movie on origin" nonsense. Everyone knows his background by now, so just get on with the current story (maybe a word or two in passing from Alfred about backstory for those in the know).
BZZZZT. No way. I'm pretty sure Bale has said he'll quit before doing a Robin movie.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Thank god for that.
I just had a silly idea that Javier Bardem would make an awesome villian, if there was a role that he could fill, anyways...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Another thing we must be thankful for is that Rachael and Bruce did not produce an illegitimate love child, like the Man of Steel. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fabrux: Thank god for that.
I just had a silly idea that Javier Bardem would make an awesome villian, if there was a role that he could fill, anyways...
Too bad....Robin (ala Tim drake's version) could rock, but they'd need someone young with fighting skills. First, they'd have to establish that Batman was losing control and burning out- then the sidekick/ adopted son would work.
Either way, I'd still rather see Batman kicking normal psycho's asses than waiting for some nut-of-the-week to drop by.
OTOH, if all the ass-kicking led up to some nut (like Riddler) pulling everyone's strings, I'd be happy with that.
Just no Mr. Freeze.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
No, a Robin story in the world BB & TDK are portraying just wouldn't ring true and I don't see Bale's Batman turning to a teenager to take up the slack, not in a million years. Also, in the real world I highly doubt social services (or whatever you yanks call it) would allow a single man, living alone to adopt a young boy, no matter how rich he is. Especially not one with a reputation for getting very publicly drunk and burning down his own house.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Just no Mr. Freeze.
Or Poison Ivy talking like Mae West.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Amen to that.
As to Robin, it was originally Bruce wayne witnessing the murder of Dick Grayson's parents and trying to spare the boy the twisted revenge-seeking childhood that led to Batman being so messed up. Taken from that context and having the kid get involved anyway would fit nicely with the general theme IMHO.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Re: the Robin thing...
On the one hand, I indeed see the difficulties in it and know how badly it has been handled before. I certainly have no great personal love of the character(s). Still, it seems to me that Robin is too big and integral a part of the whole Batman story/mythos to simply leave out. Wouldn't that be a little like doing Superman without Lois Lane?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
How about bypassing the whole Robin thing and bringing out Nightwing?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Uh...same guy, different name? How would you do Nightwing without the Robin origin?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That's pretty much what the Joel Schumacher films did.
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Re: the Robin thing...
On the one hand, I indeed see the difficulties in it and know how badly it has been handled before. I certainly have no great personal love of the character(s). Still, it seems to me that Robin is too big and integral a part of the whole Batman story/mythos to simply leave out. Wouldn't that be a little like doing Superman without Lois Lane?
No, because Lois is a fundamental component of the character, Robin (in any guise) isn't. Leaving out Robin is more like leaving out Supergirl, or Speedy. An important character for sure, but not an essential component to all incarnations of the character's mythos. Regardless, with TDK we're now about a year into Batman's career, according to most versions Robin didn't show up until quite a few years down the line. Indeed, as I recall Greyson is supposed to be about the same age as Barbara Gordon, who I'm pretty sure appears in TDK as a three or four year old. So there's at LEAST ten years before Robin should even come into it anyway.
All a moot point anyway since Bale, Nolan et al have already stated their total lack of enthusiasm to feature a bare legged pre-teen wearing a cape and pixie boots in any future film. I don't blame them.
Oh and as for Freeze, don't let Arnie's terminally hammy performance put you off. Listen instead to Michael Ansara's performance. The costume and the characterisation shouldn't be too difficult to put into Nolan's Gotham, it's not like any of the other villains seen so far have been carbon copies of any previous incarnation.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
When you say "Captain Kirk," people say "Mister Spock." When you say "Batman," people say "Robin." They're the Dynamic Duo. Was Robin there from page one? No. But he's consistently and persistently been a part of the Batman story at least as much as Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, or the Joker have been. I don't think it's right to just pass over him because teenage sidekicks aren't in the vogue at this particular moment.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Uh...same guy, different name? How would you do Nightwing without the Robin origin?
Well I only said it because people seemed to hate the Robin idea some much. Maybe just have him be another adult who's inspired by Batman to become a masked crime fighter. To be honest, the idea of Batman having a sidekick is not bad in itself. Just like Mr. Freeze, you can't dismiss the whole idea just because of its poor implementation in the previous movies.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Robin is year three.
Robin should be going on eleven or twelve when his parents get killed- he becomes Robin (after some real training) about a year later. Grayson does the Nightwing thing around age seventeen (still with Teen titans after all). All told in the conics, Batman has been at it about 15 years (making Bruce Wayne 40-ish and Nightwing 26-ish).
I'd be fine with a 15 year old Robin (so the whole "child endangerment" thing is slightly abated) and roll with the Tim Drake costume (total kevlar coverage with bo-staff- no green undies).
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
Finally got round to seeing it last night. I quite enjoyed it, I think I'm in the 'Really good but not best thing ever camp'. I particularly liked the opening scene - the clowns shooting each other was a nice touch. Also liked Alfred and his stories.
Yes he does. And there are a lot of other very unpleasant moments in the movie. The word I used to describe it when I left the cinema was 'relentless'. There were scenes involving the Joker that I actually found difficult to watch, but that's the point really isn't it? It's funny you should point that strip out, as after I saw it I ended up having a discussion about the classification. Over here in the UK it's rated a 12A. This means that theoretically, a child of any age could go and watch it provided they had an adult with them. Not wanting to open a can of worms about censorship, I would never take my kid to see that movie and I would actually feel uncomfortable with a 12 year old seeing it. What is it rated over in the states?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's PG13. Kinda a suprise it's not "R", but us Americans lavish visual violence on children on TV, so it's not that much above the norm.
Sex, nudity and alternative lifesty;es however remain taboo.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I just saw this for the second time tonight. Enjoyed it a lot more this time around. And my companion for the viewing enjoyed it too, which is always good.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Y'know there's a rumor going around that Cher will appear in 3rd movie as Catwoman. I hope it stays just a rumor.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I swear...I hope she does. Somehow that appeals to my nihilistic side.
Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Y'know there's a rumor going around that Cher will appear in 3rd movie as Catwoman. I hope it stays just a rumor.
Perhaps as Catwoman's grandma. She would've been kind of old for the role in Tim Burton's movie.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)