A multimillion dollar budget for a two-cent screenplay

Rating: 2/10 (24 November 2012)

I have seen "bad". And I have seen "bad" with budget. This is "bad" with budget with wrong subliminal messages pasted all over. The 8.8 review on IMDb only reflects the affection that people have for their superheroes. They went beyond the temporary suspension of disbelief because they WANTED to like this movie. It was supposed to be the apotheosis of the first two franchises. The fact that Master Nolan wrote it made it sacred, and any attempt to criticize was deemed to be blasphemy. Well think again. Batman's villains are supposed to be highly unconventional: a Penguin, a Riddler, Two-Faces, a deadly Clown... they contrast nicely with an improbable black-clad avenger with pointy mask-ears, deadly toys and a cape. Those villains are what makes an improbable universe coherent and believable for a little while. Batman's fight against evildoers even produces a kind of simple ethical personal questioning about good and evil.
And apart from the many naive incongruities in police operational procedures, and villain rhetoric, consider how lame and unimaginative it is to confront a pathetic older superhero barely able to move, much less fight, with terrorists/nuclear threat, the terror hype of 21st century America? Don't you see, Mr Nolan, that these to worlds are unrelated? That they make both unbelievable on screen? Making last minute links with older foes and female-heir villain twists will most definitely not make a good story, it will only show waning creativity. With this movie you have debased the Batman legend Mr Nolan. Instead of remembering him as a superhero, we'll all remember him as a diminished, last-gambit, risk-it-all old man that succeeded to save the day only because heroes don't die before delivering (at least in American cinema).