Reviews

So, I had heard something along the lines of "so much more than a superhero movie" from like 20 different sources before I saw the midnight screening last night; yet I was still unprepared for what I would see. This movie truly is something special. More like a crime drama/character study that just happens to feature Batman/The Joker/Two-face. The drama and emotional aspects run HUGE throughout the movie. And not just the inner-struggle of Batman, there are some truly philosophical underpinnings about chaos and order and all that jazz too; although I don't think there will be any roundtable philosopher discussions ala Matrix for the DVD. The plot interweaves multiple character arcs and situations effortlessly. The dialog is just about as exciting as the action. Everything fits.

The acting is top notch. We've all heard how awesome Heath Ledger's performance was before anyone but the filmmakers had seen it, and its definitely true. So many nuances and quirks, such a mix of disturbing humor and psychotic tendencies; he IS the definitive Joker. Bale is almost going to be overlooked in this, but I truly think he is one of the best actors today. Gary Oldman enjoying a normal character for the second time is pretty awesome also. This leads me to maybe my biggest complaint of the movie:

Maggie Gyllenhaal. I may be in the minority that wants Katie Holmes back. Don't get me wrong, I think that Maggie is the better actress of the two. But the only times she has really won me over was when her personality shines through (Stranger than Fiction). Her personality is also what gives her her attractiveness; because (and I try not to sound like a jerk) it does not come from typical "good looks". The part of Rachel, does not (in my opinion) allow for her personality to shine through, and instead must rely on chemistry and girl next door/best friend kind of attributes; just a "thing" or a "radiance" or something and Maggie just didn't have it. I do not think she shared much chemistry with Bale either; and this really brings down a relatively important story arc in my mind. This is a big point to me and part of the reason for not giving a perfect 10/10

On to the action! Real-world-like destruction and genuine suspense and tension are the name of the game here; and they come through in spades. Not overdone, not underdone... just right. BUT I have to lay out my second complaint here. From what I can see, I do not believe Christopher Nolan is very good at doing hand-to-hand fight scenes. The shots are close and choppy (although allowed a little more room to breathe than in Batman Begins, I excused Begins because it focused on the ninja-like tactics though) and when you get to see solid shots of a move or two; its just not very impressive. In the realm of "action stars" (which admittedly, maybe this shouldn't be put in that realm) this Batman does not feel very effective or intimidating (other than in looks/tactics obviously). I understand that this could be done on purpose for the "real world"/"batman is a guy with no super powers" kind of aspect, but I grew up with the Batman movies, he was my favorite hero by far. (I'd say Batman, original Star Wars trillogy, and Indiana Jones were my things) Frankly, he kicked more butt in the hand to hand kinda form in the old movies. Don't get me wrong; I think Begins and Dark Knight are better movies.. but the kid in me wants some good old butt kickin. I think a slightly-toned down version of Blade would be a good level of action in my opinion.

So... I really am not trying to take this movie down based on my wants for slightly different kind of action. There is so much drama, tension, acting ability, story, everything is awesome. I immediately want to see this movie again. If IMDb would let me assign a 9.5/10 I would. 85% of the reason for losing the half point being the lack of chemistry between Bale and Maggie, 15% being the slight lack of enjoyable hand to hand action. Believe the hype and help this movie set records!

I don't remember the first movie as much as i should (will check it out again in a bit), i just remember not liking it as much as everyone else seemed to. I really wanted to love it though, because it was the first "zombie" movie in a long time (yes, i know its not traditional lumbering zombies, but it did blaze a path for more zombie movies over the past few years). One thing i do remember is the atmosphere and the frenetic, shaky cam style of action. Those are definitely back in the sequel, but with that being said, I won't compare these two very much.

I don't know where to start... maybe I'll start with the bad. There is a particular scene that is really cool to see, but seems a tad too goofy for the serious tone of the rest of the film. There are also some big coincidences, and stupid actions (mostly by the kids) that crop up here and there. The shaky cam style is getting pretty old also, but it is effective in showing how crazy and intense things get. A tacked on last scene that is totally unneeded caps off the worst of the movie in my opinion.

Bring on the positives: Although just briefly mentioned, the way the city is being rebuilt and controlled shows more intelligence than your average horror movie. There are parallels that can easily be drawn to current events (as with almost every zombie movie... kinda funny that to the non-fan, "zombie movie" makes something sound stupid, when in truth they are usually very intelligent). The characters are deep enough to care about. There is a decent amount of emotional tension, and some decisions and actions that are taken are given room to show both points of view and how not everything is "good guy, bad guy". The action is intense and the pace is great. The is some very striking visual imagery in the movie also... some of the shots they show really are remarkable.

I don't have much bad to say about this movie, and i don't want to say too much of the good stuff either because i don't want to ruin anything. As stated earlier, there are problems, but they do not weigh the movie down that much. I would like to see people that don't like horror movies or zombie movies, to give this one a chance

I just saw this at a preview screening, and I liked it. I think that if you haven't seen the original and have something against older looking movies then you will definitely enjoy this. On the other hand, I prefer the original and felt like society's money would be better spent actually purchasing the original on DVD (its cheap) then seeing this. That would be a great F YOU to Hollywood! Another idea would be for movie theatres to show the original movie for a little less price and see what kind of results they get.

The movie itself is plenty intense, a decent amount of "boo scares", quick pace, attractive leads, decent acting (for the most part). Compared to the rest of the movies being released these days, I would say this is definitely above par. The only thing that I can't get over is how much alike the original it was.

There are a couple differences (the girlfriend, and a few others) that didn't really add anything to the movie at all, and even with those differences (which you would think could actually change the movie a lot) a lot of scenes are almost shot for shot the same. Acting wise, I think the main male actor faired a little better than c thomas howell... and i like sean bean a lot, but unfortunately he seemed to be doing a rutger haurer impression the whole time (dunno if that was his choice, or the filmmakers) Sophia Bush, as attractive as she is... did not impress me very much acting wise, but she wasn't horrible either.

All in all, I give this a 7, and I would personally give the original an 8.5. This one did some things better than the original, i think the original was more intense without feeling as "forced" as this one does (the level of brutality in movies feels pretty forced lately, you may understand what i mean, you may not) I honestly think that Hollywood could make some money if they would retouch some old movies and re-release them, and advertise them correctly.