This is the second movie of the new Batman movie series, and once again they pull it off beautifully. Batman this time around is being hunted down by one of the main villains of Batman lore, The Joker (and the mob).

Batman is still the same person as before. Playing two roles, that of Bruce Wayne and the other is Batman. Christian Bale plays both part beautifully. His identity is still kept secret by the few that know. Also the mansion has not been built yet so the “Bat Cave” looks weird. It is also missing the matching dancer poles.

Batman has scared a lot of mobsters and henchmen since the last movie. Officially Batman is a wanted criminal, unofficially he is a symbol of defiance and freedom. The mob bosses have banded together to try to find a way to rid themselves of this bat. This is where the joker comes in and offers his services. The Joker's movitations are not clear but he seems eager to play with the bat.

One of the things this movie does not do compared to it's alternate universe brother (Batman the movie) is show how the Joker was created. The back story comes later in narrative. In fact I have more questions about the Joker than answers when the credits roll. But don't worry, it doesn't detract from the story. It makes the Joker that much more mysterious.

First off, there is a lot of things going on in this movie. As I try to remember the details I can not come up with a clean way of describing the movie. It has emotional conflicts, physical turmoil, morality of the common man, morality of a superhero, what defines a superhero, what a hero really is in this society, what a hero is in Gotham, a commentary on “big brother”, a twisted view on what good and evil is as well as what is in between, the importance of family and friends and how they impact an individuals life, a commentary on what motivates a jihadist, and a commentary on the twisted man. So as you can see from my point of view, there is a LOT going on in this movie. And if I was a professional movie critic I would have to see the movie again to sort all of these pieces. The Dark Knight is not a simple movie when you dive deep enough.

And that leads me up to the 2 negative things I felt about this movie. First, too much is going on. My brain was racing just to keep up with analyzing the different messages the writer was putting on paper. It became cluttered and interwoven. And in some cases I think it was confusing. I actually think the movie would have been better if they left out one plot element that occurs in the end (I can't tell you otherwise it would spoil the movie). This would have tightened up the movie and left something over for the next movie. I personally wanted the third movie to be completely dedicated to this character (although they did leave a little opening for a creative writer. This is the main reason I marked the movie down from a perfect number. But alas, another writer/director that wanted everything in the candy store and fails to control one self.

The second complaint about the movie was the character building of Batman. You might say that Batman's character was built in movie one so we do not need to know any more. I disagree. I feel that I only know Batman on the surface, not his inner soul, not what drives him to constantly get beat up, not what keeps him alive. Yes the first movie addressed some of these things, but I still wanted to know so much more about the detective. It felt very incomplete in this area. But as a fellow reviewer pointed out there is some events. Batman had a chance to kill the Joker and didn't. There was a part at the beginning of a gun toting Batman (basically showing you that Batman refuses to use a gun in his line of work.) There are also a few choices Batman had to make that further define his character but I felt it was superficial and not as deep as I had wanted.

Now the best thing about his movie is the action. There is action and lots of it. You got another car chase that makes the first movie's car chase look like a horse ride on a plastic pony. It was awesome. I loved it. The staging of the action was of course beautiful. But what was even more impressive is they had the audience flying around the wings of eagles seeing the action first hand. In fact the cinematography of the whole film was awesome. I'm sure if I saw the movie a couple more times I would see some mistakes, but I can't think of any right now. The camera work made you feel like you were there. But don't worry, the cameras are steady(unlike in Bourne).

The fight scenes in general were also very well done. Each fight took place in a different environment and made it feel unique. The fights themselves were each unique. It did not feel like the same fighting style over and over again so it was a pleasure to watch each one.

The character building of Harvey Dent, the Joker, and Rachel Jones was developed quite well. Rachel a little less than the other too but I liked the development (and it worked with what we know of her from the first movie.) Harvey's personality was split and they did a good job of showing that inner conflict. One public, and the other private. And as many said, his public side was an inspiration to Gotham, and Gotham needed him as a inspiration. I felt I really knew Harvey the most of any of the characters, I felt I really knew him.

The character building of the Joker was slow and methodical. Nothing was deliberately held back, it was just that in each different setting the joker's personality molded to the setting and people around it. He was fluid rather than static. The script had something to do with this of course, but Heath ledger was the true genius behind the makeup. I also did not feel there was any moral conflict going on inside his mind, he was just plain mad and looked at Gotham as his candy store.

The acting was spot on. I can't really complain about anyone's performance. They all clearly knew their character and how to express them. No one bothered me and I have no complaints in general.

Some may find that it is too long. I disagree with this because I was engaged in the movie from start to finish. I can't seem to think of a slow spot that more than a minute or two. But in those moments character building, emotional moments were conveyed, or the story was progressed. I have no complaints at all at the 2 hours and a half movie. It is a rare movie that engages the audience for 2 and a half hours.

The special effects were perfect. They did not detract from the story and only enhanced it. For me, I could not tell what was miniature, full scale, or CG. It all blended in so well. My favorite special effect was near the end of the movie (and it was gross), but telling you any more would spoil it. For me the key is blending the CG with the real world perfectly without detracting from the story. This movie did that.

The music was good. I really have no complaints. It was traditional movie orchestral music. It carried the emotion necessary for each part of the film. What it didn't do was inspire me, nor greatly move my emotions. This is an area the very first Batman is superior in (thx to Danny Elfman). I would actually pick one up if I found one cheap or used, but I wouldn't actively look for it.

Who do I recommend this for?
I feel it is for anyone that likes a good action flick. If your a person that likes action flicks and enjoys pondering philosophical questions, then this is the perfect movie for you.
I also only recommend it for mature children, and teens; there is quite a bit of violence.

Do you have to see the first movie, Batman Begins?
If you have not seen the first my then my suggestion is go rent the first one and see this movie next weekend where you won't have to fight with the crowds.
But do I really need to see it?
No, it's ok to see it. Just don't look for very much character building of Batman/Bruce Wayne.

The key players
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screen play: Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer
Source Material: Bob Kane
Music: Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard

Ratings
Yahoo users: A
Yahoo critics: A-
Metacritics users: 9.5
Metacritics critics: 82
My score: 4.63

MPAA rating: PG-13

Running time: 152 minutes

Does someone deserve an oscar?
Heath Ledger does a phonemal job of creating a real and believable Joker. Like I said, he molded to each scene. He never got old. He made the Joker into a believable character, not a cartooney one like in the predecessor. And it wasn't just his spoken word, but his subtle action. Will he be nominated? I'm sure he has a good chance of being nominated, but I don't think he will win it. But it was still a good performance.

Some recent movies.
Hellboy
Iron Man
Indiana Jones 4>

Recommended: Yes