by benji on Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Nah, it was boring. Not as mind-numbingly boring as Begins, but pretty boring nevertheless. I can't believe the response it is getting, nor the hype it got beforehand. "This is probably the most INTENSE movie I have seen in my life." "One of the finest pieces of cinema ever." "The Joker was right, it was social experiment. But it was us (the audience) who were the participants." Comparing it to The Wire. And so on. Come on. It is a fine production, but the underlying story and characterization is hardly anything remarkable.
And I didn't watch it as an "adaptation" because it's not. But it is a "version" of the Batman mythos, but makes it simplistic, throws in a vapid plot and dialogue, and boring action sequences. Plus a near endless bunch of plot holes. And descends into a bunch of crappy symbolizing and gets away from the best part, which is the Joker.
The Joker isn't ridiculous, he's a very logical and rational character. He is sane but experiences the world around him as insane. This Joker just wants to bring chaos to order because of some philosophical positioning and is either a random insane terrorist or tactical mastermind depending on what Nolan plotted. Nolan's take was slightly believable, but not anymore so than Burton's, or Moore's or any other take on the character in the comics. Especially in the wake of Moore's cementing of the concept of Joker = Batman. Ledger's performance is what is special, the iteration of character is not.
And I don't need "background" for exploring a character. But turning Ra's into an asshole who wants to randomly cleanse Gotham, Crane into a random pawn of said asshole, Dent into um...no spoiler, and the Joker into just an asshole, loses all the complex aspects of the characters. Batman's rogues gallery, like himself, is not cool because of their gadgets or powers, but because of the fact that they aren't really insane or just criminals.
There was no reason to use Ra's, Crane or any "supervillians" in Begins. In The Dark Knight, Nolan poorly tries to explore Batman's effect on Gotham and how the Joker and Dent are the first of the wave of freaks. An old concept in Batman, but one that only makes sense if there weren't the "freaks" previously. But there were, with Ra's and Crane. There is plenty of regular crime to actually fight in a "Begins." Especially with Begins wasting so much time trying to explain why Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Yeah, Returns was a better movie. Aside from absurd action sequences using penguins and circus freaks, it is a better plot. Keaton is a better Batman, the modern Catwoman is there, the beginnings of the decartooning of the Penguin is there (and I don't understand Nolans' statement that the Penguin is unrealistic considering the changing of his character) as well as Christopher Walken. It is tight, compact, ties all the characters together easily and does not present the rogues as simplistic "villians" instead letting them be more complex. (Remember, Walken is the villian of the film. Kyle and Cobblepot are sympathetic characters and mirror images of Wayne.)
EDIT, TEN HOURS LATER:
I feel like I should add something.
I don't think this is a bad movie. It is a good movie, and considering the movies that come out today, it might even be a great movie. And I am looking forward to watching it again (but not paying for it...so um...when it comes on TV...yeah that's it...) especially in hopes of changing my opinion on it. (After about the fifth time I realized Batman Returns is amazing, and after every time, I watch if its on TV and nothing else is, I realized Batman Begins is terrible.)
Also, I think extended action sequences are incredibly boring. And this movie had a wee bit of those. Along with some of the cliched things that were done with non-Joker characters.
My reaction is primarily a counternarrative to the obscene hype and response. Nolan's take on things are only original if you're like KevC and only know of the original movie series and the freaking amazing animated series. (Even though they are hardly divorced from the animated series and Burton's films.) Which I assume most people are. I'm also still incredibly disappointed in Nolan's ability to do any characterization with any of the characters, maybe he can't handle a cast of more than two and a half primary characters. (see: Memento) Speaking of two and a half, this movie has that many hours and yet it still seems paced in mindless frenzy and blur.
My disappointment is strongly focused on the pre and post-release hype though. This isn't a "darker" Batman, it doesn't have "gray areas." Like Little Miss Sunshine and Red Eye (unless it was actually a brilliant literary critique on the genre...which is what Wes Craven should be telling people), this is only the finest piece of cinema if the only other piece of cinema you've seen is Beerfest. The Joker is one-dimensional, Dent and others are, cliched as it is to say, cliched and I still don't ever feel like Batman even gives a shit.
Of course, I also thought The Phantom Menance was fifty times the movie as Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith combined. (Along with containing the single greatest scene in Star Wars.) And that last one was praised as "dark" and full of "grey areas" where, like a Sith, I only saw "absolutes" and "black and white-good and evil-white knights and dark knights" everywhere. Along with shit dialogue, characterizations and plotting.
If there is brilliance deserving of the praise, it is mildly the Joker's plotting and things being "all part of the plan." And then enthusiastically when he shifts gears and decides to narrow from doing clever unpleasant things to Gotham (which is also uncharacterized still in the Nolan series) to doing clever unpleasant things to Batman. Although after that it all falls apart and the Joker's plotting along with the movies becomes lackluster. (Especially with the outcome we got..."darker" Batman with that kind of outcome? I don't think so.)