Good... but not that good. *Spoilerish*

Rating: 6/10 (18 July 2008)

First of all I'd like to state I'm a long time Batman fan... I've seen all the films in the theaters throughout the years and followed the character at least in passing since the about '87. I hated Batman Begins, for the casual movie goer I understood the appeal. It was a big, stupid action film full of poorly conceived pseudoscience and nonsensical plot contrivances. For my taste it deviated far too much from the source material and the nature of the characters(with the notable exception of Johnathan Crane)and I quickly dismissed this often light action show. That being said The Dark Knight is a step in the right direction. Ledger is very good in his portrayal of the Joker. Borderline outstanding. Is he up for the Oscar for his role? Well, given his untimely and unfortunate death its possible. Aaron Eckhart is also fantastic in his role. The film was indeed a necessary darker tone than Begins which I truly appreciated. However, there were still some fundamental flaws to this film that keep it from being anywhere near as great as the Michael Bay crowd would tell you it is. Rachel Dawes, while not as annoying as the self righteous crusader she was portrayed in the first film, is an utterly pointless character and only served the purpose of being a trite plot device in a forced love triangle. She really lacked any real substance or evoked any empathy. None of this was Gyllenhaal's fault, it was merely a poorly written character. The main problem of the film was Bale's Batman though. I was pulling for Bale to play Bruce Wayne since American Psycho hit. I thought he was born for the role and the disappointment I felt from Begins when he failed to live up to my expectations I immediately attributed to Goyer's fluff script. But I acknowledge my mistake now. Originally I thought,upon the announcement of casting, that Ledger couldn't play the Joker. Ledger can play the Joker, its Bale who cannot play Batman. The character was a complete non-entity in this film without confidence, strength, or passion. Essentially this is Bruce Wayne trying to ditch his Batman persona to the first good knight who steps into the public spot light because he can't bag his ex-girlfriend while he wears the cowl. It was borderline sickening and even more so now that the masses have swallowed this up as an accurate portrayal of a beloved character. Even Bale's Batman comes across as a one dimensional parody of a bully. Bale's voice hasn't much improved much in the sequel, bouncing between a slightly more hoarse version of Bruce Wayne's voice and an incoherent growl which leaves the audience wondering how, in the heat of the moment, anyone can really understand him. Those negatives aside one ends up with a solid outing that is slightly better shot than its predecessor although action sequences are still inconsistent and poorly choreographed. It is very much a villain driven piece that left at least me rooting for the monsters of the film to clean house on some of the more annoying "hero" characters. The final act of the film does leave a sour taste in the viewers mouth as it once again relies on a poorly contrived dues en machina scientific machine to save the day and a rather insignificant sacrifice out hero makes in light of the mass anarchy in the streets around him. This sacrifice is rather perplexing given that with the abundant confusion created by the Joker I, and the group I was with, were completely mystified why this character made this "sacrafice" and didn't blame events on the anarchy around them. Anyway, worth seeing for Eckhart and Ledger's performance and really rather good at points... but never that good.