Not a bad movie, but not the masterpiece you'll read about here..

Rating: 7/10 (31 July 2008)

I was a fan of Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" because it bore re-watching and pulled the viewer through the salt-and-pepper psychologizing almost without effort (much the same way Michael Clayton hypnotizes the viewer). But this follow-up is at least 30 minutes, and several reversals-of-fortune too long and too many. Its strength lies in the two performances, from Bale and Ledger, not, contrary to widespread popular opinion, the special effects (the action in the Bourne Ultimatum was far more visually interesting/captivating with far fewer gadgets and complicated digital backdrops). But a measure of the movie's shambling structure in the last third is the fact that Ledger's continuing inventiveness wears thin after 90 minutes, so much so that I found myself thinking more about what he would do next than what was supposed to be happening in the story that no longer engrossed me. My guess is Nolan got one too many ideas and couldn't resist putting every last one of them on screen. Not a good formula for a suspense thriller, which needs a tight focus to perform as the work of the greats in this genre (Hitchcock, Ridley Scott) generally do. Too bad, since what Nolan is trying for is just more interesting than what the other directors in this franchise have been doing. Maybe next time?