Interesting. This film has shot to #1 on the IMDB.com top 250 movies, above such vaunted films as The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather (as of today). Admittedly it has approximately 50% of the votes as the other two films going for it (approx 150,000 votes for TDK), but since it is also scoring 95% at rottentomatoes.com (90% critical, 93% community), one could say that the response is overwhelmingly positive. What's my view?
Set an indeterminate time after the first movie, Bruce Wayne/Batman's (Christian Bale who is hot x2) vigilante spree is inspiring the citizens of Gotham to act against criminals with mixed results and mixed responses from the police and legal force. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) trusts Batman and the new, ambitious, and seemingly incorruptible D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) wants in on the secret society and help taking down the Mob. Dent is also the new paramour of Wayne's schoolyard girlfriend, Rachael Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). But Gotham has a bigger criminal to worry about than the Mob. Enter The Joker (Heath Ledger) and slowly everyone in Gotham starts questioning their motives and others...
Honestly? I don't know what to say about this movie. It's been two days since I saw it and one day since I started writing my review and usually I can punch out an analytical review pretty quickly. This is no doubt due to the fact that during a movie, I'm usually scanning for flaws in the various aspects that make a film and then I do some thinking about how I feel when it ends. At no point during the screening did I sit there going *WHAT?!?!* I mean sure, there's the usual suspension of belief that comes with an action movie but I had no *oh, don't go there - you'll wreck it!* moments. Apart from some things listed below, the plot, the script, the acting, the action, music, cinematography etc etc are top notch.
A lot of reviews talk about how this is an intellectual adaptation of a comic, and I put this down to The Joker. Heath's acting in this role is undoubtedly fantabulous, but I think more kudos goes to the director, writer, and costume and makeup for creating such a character. The Joker is exactly that - a wildcard whose motives cannot be guessed at nor controlled and makes everyone, particularly Batman, second guess their motivations. A foil to Batman who seeks to inspire good, The Joker preys on human weakness for his own amusement. I won't say *aims* or *ends* because he really does seem to be a psychotic who enjoys chaos and conflict rather than for furthering some sort of promotion of himself. Having said that, without Heath's undoubtedly creepy performance, The Joker would not be so memorable. A certain tilt of the head, a creepy snicker, you'll never look at someone licking their lips the same way again)!
But as Icey said when I asked him if he'd read it in an intellectual way, *pffft intellectual*. If you're not into questioning the philosophy behind people's motives, the action sequences are tense (as well they should be) and spaced at regular intervals. Lots of good explosions which I viewed in all it's second from the back row IMAX glory. I'd prefer more hand to hand combat, but I think the first movie showed us that swords can't win against bombs. Pooey also liked a particular stunt involving sending a bike up a wall and then around again and I do remember thinking it was cool when I saw it.
The things I didn't like...well, I still found Bale's raspy voice whenever he's in the Batsuit kind of annoying. Okay, I get that he can't speak in his normal voice but it's like....yeah... One might also argue that The Joker's entire manifesto is Anarchy and therefore not as ground breaking as it's made out to be. With further thought, I think this is true. Also, I found the Mayor's (Nestor Carbonell) eye make up distracting. He doesn't need that eyeliner on his lower lashes and as soon as I pointed that out to Ladiesman_217 who was sitting next to me, the movie was ruined. Hehehe. Rachael as a character is still extremely underwritten but I can deal with it as Maggie was infinitely better and more believable than Katie Holmes.
Better than Shawshank or Godfather, I don't know. What I can tell you is that it is certainly intense, compelling and worth 153 minutes of your life.
8.5-9/10
EDIT - I have decided while reading over the review that my complaints are kinda petty (well, except for the Anarchy thing) so I'm upgrading the film to
9/10
2 comments:
Hey! :D This is the same Lucy from Kickette, in case you wonder! Just wanted to say that omg I too couldn't help but stare at that guy's eyeliner whenever he was on screen! My friend and I turned to each other at the exact same moment to question it. V weird. Anyway, cool blog! *thumbs up* xxx
I must say how glad I am that someone agrees that this was a terribly difficult film to rate. Enjoyable? yes. Well acted? yes by and large and Ledger was damn creepy. Suffering from comicbook "no way!" syndrome? No.... well maybe a bit. Theres the issue of a mobile phone putting out enough energy to sonar ping a large room, much less present a fully 3d build of that room... but I get it its like bat sonar... However, just how many people did the Joker have working for him to place that many barrels of explosive on 2 ferries. Also how did they conceal that many explosives in a hospital, in that many places? These are minor niggles though and if that is what I am forced to grasp to find fault in a film it was pretty good. My one true complaint.... length. It was pushing my limits of endurance if im honest. Why then do I hesitate to rave about it? Perhaps because a lot of the film felt like a setup for Batman 3.... I dont know.
Post a Comment