Not the true Batman

Rating: 5/10 (3 September 2011)

This is in itself a pretty good movie. But as a Batman movie, it's an epic fail. Christian Bale is the worst Batman ever. No, he's not a bad actor - he's a really good actor, in fact. But he doesn't feel like a true Bruce Wayne at all. The Joker is too serious and realistically psychotic, and Harvey Dent does not suffer from having a split personality like he is supposed to have.
And yeah, the biggest flaw of this movie and Batman Begins - they try so hard to be realistic, it's kinda pathetic. If Nolan wants to make his own movies, that's fine. But Batman, realistic? I don't care what people say - there's NOTHING realistic about a guy dressing up like a bat to fight crime. Nor should it be. The fans of the movie claims it's realistic because we are supposed to take it as serious as possible. Uhm, really? I'm sorry, but are the fans of this movie that dumb? Since when does it require a movie is realistic for us to take it serious? Was Watchmen realistic? Was Lord of the Rings realistic? Was Pan's Labyrinth realistic? Of course they weren't. Yet, all of them are easier to take serious than this overrated movie.
It even breaks it's own rules of being realistic... and it does so all the time. Like when the Tumbler gets trashed, and Batman makes a bat-pod pop out of it. Now, this IS a cool thing to have in a Batman movie. Only problem is - this is supposed to be realistic... and that's everything BUT realistic to have such a convenient feature. And how about when Batman punches the Joker in the head several times without him fainting, or even getting dissy (except the first time)? Oh, and I guess it's really realistic near the end when Batman gets attacked by the rottweilers biting him and the Joker beating the living s**t out of him with a crowbar at the same time? And like I said, I don't get why they changed the Joker so much here. He seems almost insecure. And why does he have a plan to spread anarchy and chaos? The Joker is supposed to BE anarchy and chaos. But here, he's just a confused psycho who doesn't seem to know what he thinks himself. Oh, and the BS in the end when Batman tosses out the Joker - in self defense, mind you - to fall down the skyscraper, and then he manages to save him. What's that load of bull about? It wasn't even his fault... and how the heck could he catch him up so well? And really; if he was THIS careful about saving all the criminals from dying - wouldn't he have saved Ra's Al Ghul in the end of the first movie? He says "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you". Uhm, that's technically to kill him, Batman. But hey, what do I know? Keeping the psychotic crime clown alive who will not stop for anything in his search for chaos might be a lot better than letting the one live who one could be able to discuss with, and who Bruce has a long friendship story with. Genius...
And really, Nolan... you're dissing SO much from the ACTUAL Batman universe for the sake of your realism. Like villains such as Mr Freeze, Killer Croc, Clayface, Poison Ivy etcetera. And you are even dissing Robin because you are "afraid people won't take that serious"? As far as I am concerned, Nolan is just too much of a coward to try to challenge himself to do things like they are supposed to be - and still making us take it serious. I mean, come on - Batman: Under the Red Hood did this. Sure, it was an animated movie.... but weird enough, it felt more authentic than the Nolan flicks. Isn't that saying something? Batman should not live in a realistic world, period. I mean, come on - they didn't even try to make Gotham City in the movies original and unique. To quote behind-the-scenes from Batman Begins, their Gotham City is "New York on steroids". This movie does not deserve it's praising.