Quote:
Originally Posted by frazod
Finally saw this tonight. I really enjoyed it. I liked it far better than the last one, although I still think the first one is the best.
One question - and bite me if asked and answered, but it's late and I don't feel like digging through hundreds of posts. Was the guy who ended up being Robin supposed to be the same kid who was on the roof with Rachel at the end of the first movie?
|
I think that's the order I put them in as well.
It's close between Begins and Rises, but as much as I loved Liam Neeson in the first one, Scarecrow just sucked the hind tit. I liked the story in Begins better, but I just like Rises a little bit more as a movie.
Ledger's performance has been deified because he became Teflon after his death. For almost any credible performance you can find people willing to give it good, even great reviews. The difference between a good job and a great job is that nobody is going to give a great job negative treatment. I still don't think that Ledger did a legitimately
great job; but nobody was going to give a corpse negative treatment. There was no counter-point so it just became gospel that Ledger's performance was superlative.
It was good. It was very good, in fact. But it doesn't make up for the presence of Gyllenhall and the fact that the story as it relates to Batman is static. Batman beats ass at the beginning, Batman beats ass at the end. He's the same guy throughout.
It's the change in Bruce Wayne as Batman that makes me like the first and third installments more. You combine that with villains that are almost (if not quite) as compelling as the Joker and I think you have just a little more meat on the bones than there is in TDK.