As I said in the other thread, that was damn near a religious experience. Just extremely my sh*t in so many ways, and basically the Fincher version of Batman I've always wanted. I don't have a ton of praise to add that hasn't already been said, other than to echo that everything from the story to the cast to the look to the score was all just about as perfect as can be. And somehow even better than I expected.
I seriously wanted to live in every single frame of this movie. I loved this Gotham, more than any other Gotham, and am obsessed with the way it was shot. Like Dune (also shot by the incredible Greg Fraser - what a insane back-to-back), this is going to be another "screensaver" movie for me, in that I'm going to have it on constantly at home, if only to bask in its cinematography and overall vibe. It was legit exhilarating, how good this movie looked and how well it was staged. Combined with the incredible score, I found myself smiling so many times throughout, at just how astonishingly the story/cinematography/music all worked together to give us so many awesome moments, both grand and subtle. I don't even know how to describe it, but it's something I haven't felt from a blockbuster in a long time. Just this perfect synchronicity of everything I love in movies like this, to where I lost count of the number of sequences that made me think, "I'm going to watch this part over and over and over again."
The other thing that really stood out to me, that we haven't necessarily seen to this effect in the other movies, was how Batman was regarded not just by criminals, but by cops/everyday people as well.
He was a f/cking alien to them.
Which was so cool/unnerving to see, and Reeves captured that so damn well. Batman wasn't just a "freak," he was this… thing… this canny, unsettling monster that Gordon had somehow half-tamed and befriended, and people were straight up disturbed by him. I loved that aspect so, so much.
As for any negatives, as few as there were…
- The exposition dumps could have been handled better and, IMO, brought the story to a halt one too many times. Especially Carmine Falcone's whole spiel to Bruce, at 44 Below or wherever, about his history with Thomas Wayne, even though it turned out to only be a half-truth, which I admittedly liked. Still, that didn't make up for the fact that it was yet another stop-and-listen scene. At the very least, give us some visuals to go along with all the info dumps. As Falcone is monologuing, give us brief cuts of what he's talking about - the stuff twenty years ago between him and Thomas Wayne. As Selina's voice mail plays, give us brief cuts of Falcone threatening and choking Selina's roommate(/lover?), instead of nothing but endless reaction shots of characters standing around listening to a voice mail. Just anything to not have so much telling and not showing.
- Along those same lines, while I did like the hard-boiled-detective/noir vibe of Bruce's voice over, his final voice over was way too on-the-nose. Characters should never have to explain the theme, or what they've learned, to the audience. If you've told your story properly, what the character learned should be obvious through their actions alone. One thing the Nolan movies have over this one in that regard is their masterful grasp of theme, and the way it's so seamlessly woven not only into character/plot, but *is* character/plot. Batman Begins is still one of the best blockbusters to ever do that (the way the theme of "fear" is used throughout, in nearly every scene), and the same goes for TDK (with the whole chance/chaos thing). Here, though, after such a beautiful movie in so many ways, it just felt clunky to have Bruce have to explain to us what he learned (that he has to be more than just vengeance, he has to be hope... which, if I'm being completely honest, wasn't *that* insightful or revelatory, though I get that it's a necessary first step).
- Re: the Joker, I'm in agreement with veryfuller, AgfromHOU, and Sex Panther. In fact, yeah, I actually hated that entire scene. It was the only thing in the movie I had an outright negative reaction to. It just felt so forced, and weirdly had the opposite of the intended effect on me, in that it didn't at all leave me wanting more. Part of the fun of the The Dark Knight was the gap between it and Batman Begins, and wondering how the Joker was going to be portrayed, who was going to play him, etc. I remember at one point there were even rumors that his backstory was going to have him be from Texas, and all that speculation was so fun. But here? As brief as the scene was, we still somehow got *too much* of a taste, and I honestly didn't particularly even like what little we heard/saw. Granted, Keoghan could eventually blow us away - I'll of course reserve judgement - but in the moment it just felt like something out of that Gotham series on Fox. It was so out of place, I honestly couldn't believe it was happening. That, and Keoghan is such a random actor that the whole thing now feels anti-climactic, almost like an afterthought. Instead, heading into sequel, I wanted to hear the stories about how Reeves auditioned a dozen actors for the role, after carefully considering this iteration of the character, etc. Otherwise, as-is, this Joker just feels so rushed and slapped together, all for a cheap tease. Besides, Nolan's Joker tease in Batman Begins was so damn perfect, and wasn't going to be topped, so why even try? In fact, I'm with Sex Panther here as well… why even have Joker in the sequel at all, and set up even more Nolan/Ledger comparisons? Save him for the third movie, as this version of Batman and this version of Gotham have so much damn potential, I'd take just about any other villain for the sequel.
All that said, again, I still loved 99% of the movie. So much so that I just bought another ticket to see it this Saturday, and I can't wait. Will be interesting to see how it all plays a second time.
