What-man?

Rating: 4/10 (24 July 2008)

I just came back from the movie and I quite wanted to like the movie. I was really looking forward to it. But I was pretty unimpressed to be honest. I get the prerelease hype, but I can't see why people aren't disappointed by the lack of style of this director, this Gotham, this Batman.
I've liked Nolan's non-Bat related movies, particularly Memento and The Prestige. I think he has talent, but it isn't really coming through in these movies.
The Gotham of this movie, basically is Chicago. But not even the memorable aspects of Chicago. It's just the tall buildings of corporate Chicago in broad overcast daylight. It could have been just about any generic place. This is a mistake for a story that hinges so much on it's mythology. Even Batman Begins had a more distinctive Gotham City which of course is nothing compared to Tim Burton's menacing and stylish as Hell metropolis.
I agree with misgivings over Bale as Batman. Only, I have the opposite opinion. I think he does fine as Bateman (aka Bruce Wayne), and is somewhat laughable as Batman. The gravelly voice had me smirking a few times. They have actually added a lot of bass to the voice of Batman. Go back and listen to how he says "Here!" in the original Batman Begins ads. It is distinctly higher and softer than the voice you get in the two movies. In fact that sound of that line changes in each of the trailers for Batman Begins.
Does Gary Oldman wonder why he is in this movie? There is nothing about the character he is playing that particularly requires his talent as an actor. Same goes with Michael Caine, although I do like him, more-so in the first movie. I feel like they are both being underused in their scenes. I'll throw Morgan Freeman in on this as well. They are phoning in their performances with no complaints from their director.
Kudos to Paul Giamatti as the Joker, though. He did an excellent job. Honestly I liked Heath Ledger's angle on the character, where it was allowed, but The Dark Knight's rating will not really allow for the character he was trying to give us, and as a result, I don't think it worked. I think Jack Nicholson gave a much more menacing character to be quite honest. It was a more tongue-in-cheek performance of course, but I think that actually worked in the favor of that particular character's menace. Jack didn't get to blow up buildings or do nearly as much psychotic stuff, though he had his share, and what he did, I think he did more effectively. I think this is more the director's fault, and the script's fault than it is Ledger's.
Even if you ignore all that, the most important flaw to me was simply the messy jumble of a story. I felt like I saw two movies mixed together. The editing was awful.
Finally, does anyone else find it odd that a movie about Batman doesn't have a single bat in it? To most, apparently, that isn't a major thing. To me it is indicative of the lack of consideration of the mythology apparent throughout this gazallion dollar franchise.