Good iconoclastic approach. Good luck getting Nolanites to concede to even point one though.
There were a few problems with this review.
First, the Wal Of Text is somewhat difficult to read. Part of the process of getting viewers to understand (or possibly agree with) your points is to present them in an easily readable manner.
Second, you seem to mainly focus on the themes of the movie, rather than the actual quality of most of it. Your points aren't necessarily invalid, but there's a fair amount of room for debate. For example, while you say that the film having an external threat took away from the "new crazies" sequel hook from the first movie, having the League of Shadows does help bring things full circle.
Third, virtually all of the review is about John Blake, a relatively small part of it, albeit one who will have more importance in the future. This has a myriad of other issues, such as you glossing over more important parts of the film while focusing on a less important one, which doesn't seem like a very good use of your 400 words.
Fourth, and somewhat related to the third point, there's not much commentary on the film outside of those points that you bring up, and relatively few statements about the general quality of things such as the dialogue, pacing, action (because, after all, this is a comic book movie), and more, so it doesn't work as well as a statement about the film's quality.
Finally, going back to the first point, it's somewhat poorly organized and abruptly transitions from one idea to another. The review does seem to be vaguely in chronological order, but it seems quite unfocused, and the conclusion creeps up on you. It's almost stream of consciousness, with the ending coming as you realized you were getting close to running out of space.
Essentially, unlike what Bastard1 says, you may have a hard time convincing people in general, not just Nolanites, to concede your points with this approach.
The points regarding the Joker I have two issues with: firstly, just because the Joker said it was so, doesn't mean it was also going to be that way. He predicted that more crazies would appear and that everyone would turn on Batman... but also predicted that at least one of the two boats would blow the other/themselves up. He was wrong there, he could make mistakes. And the other issue is of course that with Ledger's passing it could well be that the Joker's own theories aside whatever the filmmakers were intending to follow up with thematically got shelved out of respect when he died.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."
@Valiona, In some ways I think examining the strength and consistency of the themes is one of the most important ways to decide if the film is good or not. Especially when The Dark Knight is so thematically consistent.
On the other hand The Joker thing not following on from the last film isn't a thematic thing. Or them choosing to use Catwoman/Blake instead of another character. Blake actually does assist their theme too, being an orphan and everything. And the fact Blake shares some habits with a guy who went crazy in the comics doesn't really mean anything either.
But TDKR is thematically weak and it doesn't work with TDR at all (retreading the police overreach basically undoes the theme that resolved with Batman smashing his surveillance device in TDR), and I think it is the thematic weakness which sinks the film. Everything else would be forgivable if you could say that TDKR was 'about' something.
Leave a Comment:
Total Disaster
Why "disaster"? Because, well, not only is the plot kind of a mess on it's own terms, but the themes are badly expressed and it doesn't line up with both previous entries in terms of narrative or themes. At the end of the last movie, Joker teased the idea that Gotham would start producing loads more crazies from within and that stopping the mob meant NOTHING. This movie: Oh, Batman's been retired for eight years, the Joker's OBVIOUS THEMATIC SEQUEL HOOK never happened and we need to have external forces acting on Gotham as the threat. They also teased Batman needing to actually avoid the cops. Cops actually mostly seem like they're still on Batman's side in pretty much the entire movie and it's still just a smoke-screen. Last two movies: Batman needs an actual replacement. This movie: We never see John Blake (their only attempt at showcasing a replacement) as competent detective, competent ninja OR competent hand to hand fighter and there's not even room in the plot to have Batman train him, on-screen OR off-screen. Rich v. Poor theme: For an entry in a Gordon-heavy franchise that seems to have at least a little sympathy for those making due with lower resources, wouldn't Barbara Gordon/Batgirl be a more natural inclusion than either Blake OR Catwoman? That way, you could also imply that SHE'S the one who kept trying to hold the rogues at bay when they started coming out while Batman thought the mob was the end of it and he could sulk in his castle. Ending: They want us to think it's unrelentingly optimistic that Gotham is being defended by Blake. Even setting aside questions of having ANY competence at this job, who was the guy in the comics who locked himself in the Bat-cave during the day? Oh, that's right, Jean-Paul Valley, the guy who ultimately went completely stir-crazy. I guess it's more technically watchable than the gaudy Batman & Robin, but for something that is so driven by occasional stuff from the past movies, it's almost as bad or, even, worse than that one in terms of narrative and thematic cohesion.