Should you go watch it?
Yes. Specially if you liked the previous ones.
Spoiler free review.
I must first clarify that I have only seen it once, doubted to Spanish in a theater with less-than-usual screening quality. I was planning for my second visit, this time in English but there were so many kids in my car that I ended up seeing ParaNorman instead (sadly). But this still gives me an opinion on the voices: Batman's is for sure better in Spanish (since I don't think it changed from the previous 2 movies). Catwoman's, Bruce Wayne's and the rest are probably pretty well doubted but I'm dying to see it in English hoping Bane's better that the one I experienced at that crappy theater.So, the movie is good. I really like the fact that it closes a circle with the previous two. The plot is good. If I hadn't heard on the radio that it was almost 3 hours long I wouldn't have guessed it. It's such an entertaining film that it doesn't feel long at all. It feels 2 hours long (or even shorter since it starts 8 years after the previous one and you wished they showed more story there).
It's not a problem free movie and it's not the best of the 3. Everybody is going to like the second one best (because of the Joker of course) but for me it's better, worse and the same in many respects. The first one gave us the first great Bruce Wayne (but no Batman). The second one gave us a great Joker (even if not completely based on the comics' essence) but the third one doesn't really add much to those two. At the same time it has more characters, interesting connections to the comics and great action scenes. I'll tell you why it's the same in the spoilerish section.
One question you may have if you haven't seen it is: "do Anne Hathaway or the kid from 3rd Rock From The Sun (great show BTW) ruin it?". It's a fair question and I know I had it. The answer is, amazingly, no! Anne is good as a Catwoman (that is never called that name) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is almost the main character in the movie and he does a great job (and no, he's not Azrael).
Now, I think everybody is finding Anne as a great Catwoman but I'm not. I really think she didn't ruin the movie but she's not great. She's not a femme-fatale to me. If Catwoman hadn't been drawn as she has been all these years and if Michelle hadn't played the Selina Kyle that she played, maybe I could buy Anne's role. So I don't like her as Catwoman but at least she didn't mess up the part as Katie Holmes did in the first one.
And the movie is far from great. I didn't like the twists, the stupid ways Gotham citizens act, Batman's uncomfortable suit and lack of screen time, Bruce Wayne's lack of screen time, or the fact that they had one of the best story arcs in comic history as basis and took almost nothing from it (just threw a bone or two for us comic book geeks). They still haven't brought Batman to the screen (that includes all the old ones). But the worst part is Batman's fighting skill. It's just wrong. The suit doesn't help but there seems not to have been any martial arts consultant around to explain how Batman survived that long with the worst fighting technique (was he trained by Kung Fu Panda?).
So, the best adaptation of comics to a movie is still the Avengers, the best Batman movie is still The Dark Knight (though I'm still waiting for a real Batman movie), the best Bruce Wayne movie is still Batman Begins, the best Catwoman movie is still Batman Returns and no-one has come close to bringing Knightfall to screen yet. But the movie is the best of the summer and a fun film to watch more than once.
Now, someone please tell me... how the hell does Christian Bale change his body so drastically?!
Spoilerish review.
Ok so why is TDKR the same as the previous one (The Dark Knight)?... Show/Hide the rest of the spoilerish review
...Well it almost seems that they wrote this film thinking about The Joker... the villain is not Bane from the comics (and at least not Bane from Batman & Robin) but is actually The Joker. Does the same thing and for the same reason. I know that one of the twists explains a different reason but it's really not: he just wants to create chaos and make the citizens do harm to the city by themselves for some weird (insane?) reason. So, it's like watching the previous movie again: the villain threatens the city and forces them to behave stupidly and a couple of heroes have to show how good people should behave. It's like these movies are propaganda against revolution: anarchy is BAD, it's CHAOS and makes YOU the terrorist!. The previous one was worst in that sense since Batman even had to become The Big Brother to save the day.
Another thing I hated about the movie was how stupid the "Harvey Dent was good" lie was, how important it was for Gordon and what big impact it had in the city (to the point were Batman was not needed anymore). So Bruce Wayne was not Batman but also not Bruce Wayne for not good reason. And yet, nobody notices that Batman and Bruce seem to appear and disappear at the same time.
There is one amazing comic in which Batman becomes an addict (with Bane's venom, by the way) and he has to cure himself by... well, I won't spoil it, read it! (this is the one). The point is: why having such amazing comics nobody seems to be able to make a closely-great movie?
Another thing I hated about the movie was how stupid the "Harvey Dent was good" lie was, how important it was for Gordon and what big impact it had in the city (to the point were Batman was not needed anymore). So Bruce Wayne was not Batman but also not Bruce Wayne for not good reason. And yet, nobody notices that Batman and Bruce seem to appear and disappear at the same time.
There is one amazing comic in which Batman becomes an addict (with Bane's venom, by the way) and he has to cure himself by... well, I won't spoil it, read it! (this is the one). The point is: why having such amazing comics nobody seems to be able to make a closely-great movie?
No comments:
Post a Comment