Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

I was thrilled when the Batman film franchise was rebooted with Batman Begins starring Christian Bale and Gary Oldman. I hadn't seen much of Christian Bale, but I was willing to give him a chance. Gary Oldman, for the most part, has always played the villain, so his role as Detective Gordon was also a pleasant surprise. Of course, we can't forget Liam Neeson, either, as Bruce's mentor who really turns out to be the villain in this first flick. Interesting casting and turns of events in the first film, and the character development of Batman, made the first film memorable for many viewers.

This second film in the rebooted franchise is no less surprising, but the surprise comes with mixed emotions. For viewers who like their super heroes, this film will disappoint. For viewers who like their sociological and psychological studies, this film will not disappoint.

This new film is a headier concoction, dealing with tough psychological and sociological issues about good and evil, where it dwells, how does one combat evil, what is the true nature of evil, are criminals evil to the core, and other such questions. With this kind of study, the film's plot must be less about the personal development of characters and more about their responses to tough situations that bring these questions to mind.

The hero as individual is no longer important. This film is not about Batman as man, hero or billionaire. It is, instead, about preconceptions, chaos and Batman's role in inspiring and combating chaos and evil. So for this reviewer, the 2nd film in this new franchise was not as entertaining as the first. Gone are the personal issues that Batman had to consider during the course of the first film. The characters change little if any during the film. The scope of this new film is much larger, less microscopic, a step back to view the larger picture (as it were).

The characters in this new film are less developed, more wooden, but are also more interesting sociologically than those in the first film. One character is more interesting psychologically. One character does an unconvincing double-take, though it is accompanied by worthwhile special effects.

Batman, Gordon and Rachel Dawes find themselves in a plot with strict political and sociological boundaries. Batman's square peg is that which a single masked vigilante can do to save a city from crime and corruption. His effort in the first film isn't good enough, apparently. In this new film, we find regular joes who have been inspired by the caped crusader fighting crime in makeshift Batman costumes and wielding guns. Of course, some of these regular joes (I almost wrote jokers!) get hurt as they fight crime. One is even killed on video by the Joker as a means to demonstrate the chaos Batmas has himself started. Batman has come to understand that he is not and cannot be Gotham's white knight or savior.

We find Detective Gordon in still much the same predicament as the first film. Doing all he can for the city, trying to take down the mafia by hitting the banks who launder their dirty money. Trying to hit them where it hurts, at the source of their finances, since taking them off the streets one by one hasn't and doesn't do any good. His war is the smart war, IMHO, to cut the head off the dragon so it dies. As part of his ongoing campaign, he is promoted to Commissioner one day during the film because the previous Commissioner has just been murdered the day before.

Rachel Dawes knows Bruce is the Batman, and knows that she cannot ever be with Bruce as long as the city needs Batman. She has also come to realize that she can't ever marry Bruce because Bruce is really Batman's alter ego, Batman's mask. So she has found another hero, the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent, to warm her bed and heart. Of course, Harvey Dent is handsome, and asks Rachel to marry him. Though Rachel is torn between the two men, she chooses Harvey Dent, because he wears no masks. He is called Gotham's white knight, Gotham's savior. He works within the system and pretends to be nothing else than who he is. Both men share the same goal: rid Gotham of crime.

The Joker is the character thrown into the script to spice it up. While crime and corruption doesn't necessarily have a face in this film, since it rests with an organization rather than a single man, The Joker clearly gives chaos a face to remember. While the mob must be fought with politics, surveillance and marked bills, The Joker must be fought with different weapons. Interestingly enough, The Joker causes problems for all characters in the film: Batman, the mob, and the police. He always seems to be step ahead of them, because they all think linearly and logically. The Joker is then able to predict what their programmed responses will be to most situations. This, then, in the Joker's own way, is his method of planning.

This is not to say that The Joker is predictable. As one other reviewer has noted here on epinions.com, The Joker is the single card in the deck that changes how the game is played. This characteristic is true here in this second film as it is in cards. The Joker, like the other characters, has an agenda, but his is not for personal gain, but to introduce chaos into the patterned lives of other characters and watch their responses. He kills one regular joe who pretends to be Batman to show Batman the true inspiration he has given Gotham. He also takes down the mob and takes their money, only to burn it, to show them how weak, inconsequential and useless their organization and pretenses to power are in the face of chaos, to those who do not play by the same rules. The Joker makes loud, public statements such as blowing up General Hospital and sending video footage of the murder of the Batman impostor to the media.

Chaos is embodied in this film by the Joker. Heath Ledger is lost in this role (metaphorically speaking). He is unrecognizable as Heath Ledger in this film. He is entirely the Joker. Throughout the film, the Joker introduces situations that require the characters to make choices and respond according to their values. But we are left wondering what the Joker values. He burns a stack of money, half the mob's money. He has destroyed the mob in Gotham, taken control of it.

We are also left wondering about the Joker's origins. Twice in the film, the Joker reveals how he became the Joker, or got the scars that give him the scarred smile he wears. Both stories involve family situations and a knife. The first time he tells how he got the scars, he implies his abusive father cut him after beating his mother because the Joker, as a boy, was "too serious." The second time, he says that his beautiful wife was disfigured by loan sharks, so he cut himself to ease her pain (she had also told him he shouldn't be so serious). Either story could be true, I guess. But it is also true that both stories could be lies. Yet they both share the same element of an unhealthy family life. And as most educated viewers know, an abusive home life often leads to a life of violence, drugs and crime. So we are inclined as an audience to believe that one or the other story is true, or that the truth involves his family somehow.

The pivotal scene in this film occurs when the two ferries are rigged by the Joker with explosives and commanded not to dock or they'll be blown up. One ferry carries prisoners in orange jump suits; the other carries normal, average citizens (non-criminals). Both groups are given a detonator that will blow up the other ferry. So each group must make a decision: blow up the other group before the other group comes to the decision to blow them up. Of course, the audience is the observer in this experiment, and it is unclear which group will decide to activate their detonator. The criminals, because they are criminals, are likely to use their detonator because they don't value laws and others. The citizens are likely to use their detonator because the criminals have already had their chance to live by society's rules and chose to break them. In the end, neither group chooses to blow up the other group to save themselves. Though both groups had been given a midnight deadline by the Joker, the Batman thwarts this deadline by defeating the Joker in the nick of time before he can blow up both ferries with his own detonator.

This scene is pivotal because it shows Batman's role amidst chaos and demonstrates that, though their be criminals among us, we choose not to destroy each other. Batman's role is to thwart chaos before the social structure collapses and we "blow each other up." To face chaos mano e mano and destroy it as often as necessary, whatever the cost.

The only unsatisfying event in this film is when Harvey Dent becomes Two Face because Rachel Dawes is blown up by the Joker. It's just not convincing that a man as fearless as Harvey Dent about putting criminals behind bars and doing whatever it takes legally to do so will roll over so easily when defeated by such a small thing as the death of a woman who is not his wife. Once he has been burned and becomes Two Face, he turns on Gordon and Batman, his closest allies in his fight against crime and the mob in Gotham. He kills those he feels are responsible for Rachel's death (police officers who acted for the Joker instead of for the police department). He nearly kills one of Gordon's children to show him how it feels to lose a loved one. Until Batman thwarts him, of course. Two Face and Batman tumble together from a second or third story to the earth below, and Batman lands on top of Two Face, killing him, it would seem.

The cost for the Batman, finally, is to take upon himself the sins of others. In this case, Batman assumes the charges of murders committed by Two Face so that Harvey Dent's "white knight" legacy is not blighted by the charges, because that's what Gotham needs from Batman at the end of this film. Batman, already a vigilante, can assume this role of the Dark Knight for Gotham, and neither Gotham nor Batman will be any worse for it. Hope for the populace lives on.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older