The "CSI: Gotham" nature of exhaustively grounding even the most improbable plot devices in potentially attainable technology and forensic science was very clever and fun, but, yeah, it did kind of highlight the disconnect between the deliberately non-stylized style of this world's reality, versus the costume-wearing vigilantes and criminals who appeared in it. That being said, I actually quite liked the idea that the Joker would be deemed a "terrorist" in the post-9/11 world, as well as the questions about security-versus-liberty that the story was smart enough to acknowledge, at least.

Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman were all reliably top-notch. Christian Bale needs some work - he's both a bit too bland as Bruce Wayne and a bit over-the-top as Batman. In particular, the growly voice simply DOES NOT WORK. He should have been studying Kevin Conroy's voiceover work in the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm Batman cartoons instead. Aaron Eckhardt as Harvey Dent, however, was remarkably affecting, even though I knew, of course, the fate that would befall him. Even as Two-Face, he played it just straight enough for me to buy off on it. I'll agree, though, that Maggie Gyllenhaal, who can be sizzling in the right role, was remarkably dull here.

I got a kick out of all the little touches, like "Commissioner Loeb," Eric Roberts as Sal Maroni (Jesus, all they need now is Rupert Thorne in the next film, and they'll have the trifecta of non-costumed Gotham mobsters whom I never would have expected to see in a Batman film), Michael Jai White (ha ha, Spawn!) as the mob boss that the Joker pisses off, and "Tiny" Lister (DEEBO!!!) as the convict who turns out to be The Moral Voice Of The Everyman in the movie.

Heath Ledger as the Joker ... Jesus Fucking Christ, this was tragically golden. I submit that Ledger's Joker constitutes the best portrayal I've ever seen of the character, in ANY medium, including the comic books that served as its source material. In the movie theater, I found myself laughing out loud and nearly shouting, "HOLY SHIT," at least once every time he appeared onscreen, starting from the "disappearing pencil trick" forward, and in that same theater, I was far from alone in that regard. The multiple-choice versions of his past, and the contention that anyone can be turned into someone like him, with just the right push, all hearkened back to the best of Alan Moore's writing in "The Killing Joke," and when he called himself an "Agent of Chaos," I just about lost my shit completely.

My dream picks for the next film: David Tennant as the Riddler (he's already expressed an interest in the role), serving as Batman's nemesis, with Oswald Cobblepot as Bruce Wayne's business rival.

A kids' cartoon doesn't need to be (and arguably shouldn't be, in certain respects) all dark and brooding, but by the same token, if the retro music is any indication, this show seems to be trying for a deliberately campy tone, which I'd argue is pandering way more toward the nostalgic adults in the audience than to their children. Plastic Man and the new Blue Beetle are GREAT choices for a kids' cartoon (and I'd love to see the new Blue Beetle's hot Hispanic MILF mom from the comics on the show), but including a Silver Age-style Green Arrow on that lineup seems about as out-of-place and self-indulgent as a baby-boomer DJ playing a Warren Zevon song under the pretense that "it's what the young people want to hear."

Still, it looks light-years better than the total piece-of-shit that was "The Batman" cartoon, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

Yeah, but thinking through the terrorist analogy led me to some unpleasant associations. Essentially, this movie comes across as George Bush's wet dreams of himself. First, and most obvious, is that Batman is completely willing to tap and spy on every citizen in Gotham if it will help him catch this dangerous terrorist. He doesn't hesitate to resort to torture in order to get information... Not just intimidation, mind you... actual torture. What's more, his main objection to Harvey himself torturing that one guy is that it would be bad if the public found out about it. (Note that neither he nor Harvey ever have qualms about using information gathered through torture committed by shadow agents (aka Batman himself), so it's all about the political appearance rather than any inherent immorality in the act itself.) And in the end of the film, the most noble thing that Batman can do is withhold the truth from the public and allow them to hate him, all for their own good. I'm sure this is going to be a favorite in the White House.

But really, the morality of Batman movies have always been botched at best. At this point, I have trouble understanding Batman's stand against killing. It's obviously not due to any inherent belief in the sanctity of human life (as witnessed by the "I don't have to save you" from the last movie). Nor is it apparently due to any belief in the system or the law, judging by the way he tramples it in this flick. Really, it just comes across as him not wanting to get his hands dirty. Ultimately, I think the Joker is right... in these movies, any morality applied by the characters seems to be arbitrary and a sham.





I really liked him, although I felt the switch to evil seemed rather arbitrary... But that was probably because, again, I didn't really "feel" the death of Rachel.




Rachel was a horribly written role in the last movie, and just a plot device here. Really, Batman movies have never managed much of a connection in love stories... They're closer to James Bond movies than something love-story driven like Superman or Spider-man. (Even the last James Bond movie wasn't able to make me feel anything when his girlfriend died.)



I really liked the convict on the ship scene... and it was perfectly believable that there would be a single guy there willing to take charge and put an end to things. However, I wasn't nearly as convinced by the civilian's side of things. Sorry, but the Joker had made his point too well to make me believe there was nobody who was willing to press that button.



I really liked him... I just wish there had been more chemistry between him and Bale as Batman. Mostly, Bale just growled through all their scenes together. Batman was totally outclassed by his adversary.


Well, I think they can either coast on the success of this one (and coast a long way, from the look of things) or they can try to keep public interest at a fever pitch by offering a new take on Selina Kyle/Catwoman next time out. People have forgotten that Halle Berry film ever existed, and she's the biggest character they could bring in next.

Anyway, while it's easier for me to go off on the things that weren't perfect, it was still a very well done and entertaining movie.

You'd think, but Batman himself comes to realize his methods are dragging him further down into the depths here. He knows he's wrong, which is why he destroys the spy rig at the end, therefore keeping Lucius as an ally.

It's a film where almost everyone, at some level, has effed-up morals.

Except that they go through with using it... which means they felt it was justified at least that one time because of the danger the terrorist posed. Oh, sure... it's not the kind of thing they'd leave around to use during peacetime, certainly, and so when they were done with it they destroyed it. But while the Joker was out there, they used it.

If they wanted to send the message that it wasn't acceptable, then Lucius should have quit on the spot and left the room, showing that Bruce had already gone too far. Agreeing to do anything "Just this once" never sends the message that something is truly forbidden, and always leaves the door open to doing it again.

... Which is a trait shared by both Batman and the Doctor from Doctor Who. Both characters possess a bit of an anti-authoritarian streak - granted, the Doctor overthrows entire civilizations at will, while Batman is willing to work with certain members of Gotham law enforcement, but he still sees fit to overlook or defy the laws they serve whenever he deems it appropriate - because both characters, to a certain extent, make their own laws. However, this is precisely what makes them hypocritical, because they are anti-authoritarian when dealing with authorities outside of their own, but they expect their own authorities to be obeyed, and they're willing to go to extreme ends to enforce those authorities.