I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I will see it again and again.

Rating: 8/10 (18 July 2008)

Best. Batman. Film. Ever.
My faith in the Nolans was amply rewarded. After "Batman Begins," I was concerned that Hollywood had more effect on them than they had on it.
But this film had a much better story than the first one, not quite as Hollywooded-up as the first one, darker than the first one, and Heath was achingly good. After every one of his scenes, I found myself doing a nervous, creeped-out laugh because of his chilling portrayal of madness.
The action sequences were chaotic, poorly choreographed and boring, except for a couple of times when they focused on clever maneuvers by Batman (good idea, as that's all we really care about, not a bunch of random violent punching and kicking nonsense). But the good news is that there were not as many action sequences as I expected -- the story turned on plot, not on what happened with stupid car chases and explosions.
I actually wondered, by the end, if the Nolans weren't a little bit making fun of the genre with the way they handled the action. It was a caricature of itself, overblown, impossible to follow and really boring -- and yet the movie was freaking incredible anyway. It kinda shows you that a good superhero film doesn't really need action sequences.
Back to the important stuff: the story. The moral tangles that unfolded were smart, just a little bit complicated and very nicely handled. Not as much macho-crap bravado and "honor" nonsense as the first and more actual dilemmas about the consequences of our behavior, both good and bad.
The focus on morality combined with the strong story turned what could have been just another good superhero movie into a piece of cinema history that transcends its genre -- this is a three-act opera, a tragedy of epic proportions and a dark, nasty comedy.
Overall, bravo! And thank you, Nolans. I'm glad you did better than "Begins."