I thought this movie kicked major ass. Definitely a highlight of the series.

i enjoyed the movie. i liked the way they did the joker. very good call to NOT explain his origin... to do so would screw it up.

but while i'm not as much of a stickler as ricky bobby is, i will say that the mechanics of the plot didn't really seem to make sense, mainly in this regard:

they give batman the "cheat" of having infinite money. in this way they can say "oh, the plot needs him to do something that would cost $200 million, well ok, he can just do it". ok, fine, that's explained; it's always been part of the character.

but what i feel is sort of unexplained and unjustified is how the joker is magically everywhere at once and controlling all cops. they do imply that the majority of the cops are corrupt, and i guess the joker could buy that influence with the money stolen in the beginning...

i think what it comes down to is that in batman begins, they slowed the pace of the movie to try to come up with vaguely plausible explanations of the usual implausible superhero stuff. in this movie, they wanted a faster pace, so some of that stuff kind of just happens.

i'm glad that a lot of people are liking this, i was afraid for the hype...

I don't understand criticizing a comic book movie for being improbable. I saw it last night and thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you remember, neither Batman or Joker is supposed to have superhuman powers.

Batman's superpower is heightened muscle memory. Batman has "photographic reflexes" and is able to learn any martial at a highly accelerated rate.

Joker also has a superpower. He's got a superintellect that maps probabilities instantaneously. And he's a total pain in the ass.

ubercat wrote:Batman's superpower is heightened muscle memory. Batman has "photographic reflexes" and is able to learn any martial at a highly accelerated rate.

He also has the superpowers of being able to disarm criminals (every time) with awkward bat-shaped boomerangs and brooding on the upper ledges of a high-rise building in a cape without being blown the hell off. Being able to fire and secure a grappling apparatus in mid-air while catching someone is a pretty good one, too.

To Batman,whose plausibility remains one of the grander delusions of comic book culture!

Rick Reuben wrote:They stretched time, physics, and the limits of human capability too damn often.

I haven't seen it yet. I want to know- Did they have a time-clock running at the bottom of the screen? -In order to show that the events of this FICTIONAL movie, based on COMICBOOK CHARACTERS, was happening in REAL-TIME?

A true skeptic! Cheers to RR/CB!!

It's as if you had a pre-viewed attitude towards this movie. maybe?

Rick Reuben wrote:I flipped my mind .

Rick Reuben wrote:
I never felt any real suspense. Something like Bourne Ultimatum or the last Bond movie, there was real suspense, because, although they border on comic book movies, too, they keep at least one foot on Planet Earth. Batman lifted right off into full on fantasy land too often.

OK, first of all, thank you for totally invalidating any reason we could possibly have to take your opinion seriously. It was nice to let us know that you think The Fucking Bourne Fucking Supremacy is an example of a good movie. It's like an album reviewer saying "Spiderland is a boring, unoriginal album, sparkling with none of the excitement and creativity of Candlebox's self-titled debut." Thanks for letting us know what your opinion is worth.

Second, I am SHOCKED that a movie about a man who dresses like a giant fucking bat to perform all manner of leaping-from-skyscrapers feats of superherodom travels into the realm of fantasy. From a comic book? WTF? Shocking.

Your retardation extends beyond politics and economics, I see. Good for you. I like a renaissance man. I bet there are hundreds of subjects about which you can speak with staggering levels of incorrectness.

ginandtacos, I liked the movie very much but there were for-real logistics problems and lots and lots of sloppy editing. RR's got his points.

1. How did Dent survive the crash but not the mob boss?

2. Batman jumps out a window to save Rachel while the Joker's rummaging around his house. Then...cuts to next scene. Where'd the Joker go? Was he upstairs molesting Sen. Leahy?

3. Everything with the hostages in clown masks and the doctors...wtf. I had no idea what was going on there. None. Zip. Why did the cops suddenly turn on Batman?

4. Wayne sure got over the violent murder of his childhood girlfriend pretty quickly.

5. Okay, did the Joker give Batman the wrong address or did he choose Dent (more interesting if he chose Dent, though I doubt that's what Nolan intended us to think).

6. Did I see that white-haired cop (that Dent later kills in the bar) leading the Jokers troops up to Wayne's penthouse? So...he works for the joker? The mob?

7. Why not show us how the Joker got the drop on the cop in the interrogation room? Fuck, give us a shot of his hidden knife or SOMETHING.

I'd say a combined total of 10 extra minutes (maybe 5) could solve a lot of these problems.

Yeah, and the Boston Strangler does strangling better than Christopher Nolan. What's the point? That you can name a director who does a better job of making mind-numbing action movies for fratboys and retards? Don't waste your money on the third Nolan/Batman sequel. Stay home and watch Con Air.

Fine, point taken. Christopher Nolan does a poor job of making the kind of idiotic tripe likely to entertain you. We can all see that.

And once - just once - could you furrow your little brow, think real hard, and start a post with something other than a personal insult that sounds like a 12 year old who has just been told to go to bed?