Worth seeing once (if there's anyone out there that hasn't seen it already)

Rating: 7/10 (1 November 2002)

First off, I just have to say that nobody should tell you what a movie is supposed to be or meant to be. A corollary to that however, is that we all come into each movie with different expectations.
Personally, I expected a huge blockbuster (which it was), while sticking to the quality I feel that Batman (1989) had. Unfortunately, I think the quality was lacking in several areas. First off, the acting was sub-par to me. My expectations, like all of you, get me into trouble here. I have always admired Dafoe's work, but he didn't seem at all comfortable in this role (and no, I really don't think I was typecasting him in my own mind). Toby was fine, but that's it. Dunst seemed to be overacting or something...I couldn't really tell. The script (dialogue) was bad period. Yeah, comic books usually are comprised of elementary dialogue but this was an insult even so. Obviously, you can't give the movie any credit for plot, twists, or cool self-referential themes since it's based on a prior work. The CGI was bad, see Attack of the Clones or LoTR for what they SHOULD have done with the computer graphics. The mood and tone throughout was decent, but Batman was better (credit Burton). The pace of the movie and the action, which is what I was so excited about, really didn't do it for me. Again, Attack of the Clones blew this movie out for pace and action. Okay, it's not fair to compare the two on that note, but I was expecting something more towards what I eventually saw in Attack of the Clones.
It was worth seeing, but I won't be buying it and won't be seeing it again. Love you all!