The Old Mixer wrote:
On the general review topic, I found it to be a solid and engaging film, and gave it an Excellent here, on the basis that in terms of letter grading, I would have given it a solid A, but not an A+. I don't think Superman is in any danger of being dethroned as the definitive super-hero film. This one is far from definitive, it's more specialized, taking the existing genre to new places. It has the same flaw as BB, even moreso. It seems to have become popular to bash the Burton films somewhat...some even see them as "camp", when in 1989 the first film stood as a polar opposite to the Adam West TV show. I'd say they were more fantastic than camp, but whatever they were, they established a world in which you didn't have to suspend much disbelief to buy that a man would dress in big rubber batsuit to fight crime. This is where the Nolan films fall down flat. The titular character is the one thing that takes me out of these films. He seems to work better on paper--when Bruce and Alfred are talking about symbols and what he has to become, it works. But when we clearly see the guy in the big not-rubber batsuit, he just sticks out as being too unreal for his surroundings.
That was the same argument I was making after Batman Begins-- that Batman just didn't look right within that more realistic world, and that Burton's approach (of creating a world that a Batman could believably exist in) was the better one.
I didn't really feel that as much with TDK though. I don't know if it's because the new suit was a little more "armor-y" and less fanciful-looking, or because the movie simply had a much stronger story to distract me from it-- but I definitely had an easier time accepting Batman within this world.
I still think Nolan explained
way too much and removed too much of Batman's mystery
in these movies (essentially making him just a glorified SWAT officer), but that's a different issue.