Movie Review

So, after recently procuring the two latest Batman movies, I proceeded to watch them both this weekend and give myself a second taste of what they had to offer.

Definitely, they rank high on my list of favorites. (An interesting thing can be observed about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight: They aren't so very much like another superhero series: Spiderman. They strike me as a lot more serious and grown-up than the Spiderman series, sort of like they recognize more of what life is actually like. Perhaps, that's they are more appealing. The action is nearly as good, if not better, and... Bruce Wayne does not have any super powers--further increasing the realism.)

Now, one thing I was particularly keen on observing this round of seeing the two films is that degree to which they form a single entity or are continuous. That subject has plagued the fullness of my approval for the movies, and especially The Dark Knight. I was somewhat disappointed that Dark Knight is so very different than the first one. It seems to take the series down a very different direction. I can think of a couple examples of this observed deviation.

1. They discontinued or changed several characters. Rachel Dawes is the most obvious example of this. Now, far be it from me that I should make such a big deal of their choice of actress for a particular role. But, she is nothing like the first Rachel. But, since this isn't a very easily defended point, I don't think I am going to press the issue a whole lot. I'll just say that she looked and sounded like a regular Carrie Fisher. Perhaps, a stronger point can be made for the fact that there are no flashbacks with Bruce's father. He was such a key figure in Bruce's decisions and thoughts of the first film. Now, it's like he is forgotten.

2. The Dark Knight is so much more... dark. Now, that may seem like a stupid quibble, but one must admit that the characteristic greatly alters the bent started in the first film. Don't get me wrong. The dark atmosphere is a very valuable asset for what the movie does accomplish--delivering a masterpiece of plot and the study of human character.

Upon further reflection after finishing The Dark Knight this evening, I decided that the difference between the aura of the two films is actually very realistic. When you consider the lives of real people, you do not see a consistency in how events play out in their lives or the nature of their environment. You see changes, not just between the triumphs and the failures, but also with the circumstances over which we have no control.

The second Batman movie takes this into account. Perhaps, they did not intend it. But, whatever the case, we see in the second movie, that even while Batman gains a respected although necessarily vicious role (having come from somewhat scummy roots) in the first chapter of the series, he becomes a somewhat ominous character that is causing more pain than happiness in the lives of those around him, whether he intends it or not. Life does not play out like a straight road, or a consistent set of circumstances. It plays out in such a way that we cannot predict to where it will lead us next.

So, in a way, I think I appreciate the Batman movies so much because they teach us a little bit of truth. But, one can push that point only so far. Ultimately, they still form a godless (I mean that in the literal manner, not in the more denouncing way it is usually used.) story. What that means, taking the second movie as an example, is that the cure for chaotic evil is the steady purpose and good that come out of us as humans. In reality, we can only do that because God helps us do it. Because He first did it Himself.